Pros: Overall build quality, flexibility, connectors, cinch, aesthetics, fits with some standard 2 pin connections.
Cons: Microphonics, over ear section can initially be uncomfortable, did not fit FLC8S, very difficult to see L/R indicators
For larger (1200 x 800) images, click any picture
(the above photo is one of FiiO's stock images - credit to them for the fine photography)
INTRODUCTION
I'm pretty much a cable agnostic. I don't believe in magic – I do believe in measurable changes, and do believe they can affect the sound to a certain extent. But the stuff they change can be measured, and as long as we don't try to look for something that's not really there, then I have no issues. I'm usually a sceptic regarding some of the claims that cables can make – and experimenting has helped me a lot with my understanding.
For me – the most important things about a cable are the build, connection/connector quality, flexibility, aesthetics, fit and comfort, level of noise or microphonics. The only real interest I have in sound is that I would prefer it doesn't overly alter the sonics of my earphones. For that I can use EQ, or tip roll. I would never buy a cable because it sounds better. We'll get into that during the review.
You will notice that I've also posted a review on the FiiO RC-SE1B, and that a lot of the review is identical. This is because a lot of the build, packaging etc is also identical. Hopefully you will allow me to reprint same sections in both reviews. In the matter of cables – it is simply not practical to rewrite entire sections when they will contain the same things.
Lastly – my reasons for asking FiiO about the cables was primarily so I could test the new AM3 balanced connection on the X7, and also the Luxury & Precision L3.
ABOUT FIIO By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary. FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. They debuted their first DAP (the X3) in 2013, and despite some early hiccups with developing the UI, have worked with their customer base to continually develop the firmware for a better user experience. The X3 was followed by the X5, X1, X3 2nd Gen (X3ii), X5 2nd Gen (X5ii), M3 and X7. They now have a full range of DAPs, DAC/amps, amps, cables and interconnects, and are even starting to release their own earphones (designed and manufactured in partnership with other OEMs).
FiiO’s products have followed a very simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.
DISCLAIMER The RC-UE2B cable was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I had made it clear to FiiO in the past that I did regard any product they sent me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request.
FiiO have told me earlier this year that they will no longer accept any payment from me for gear I'd like to keep for myself - they have insisted any future review models are mine to keep. So I acknowledge now that the RC-UE2B I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I thank FiiO for their generosity. I own and have paid for the E7, E9, E11, E11K, X1, and X5 in the past. I get no form of recompense or payment for these reviews, and I have no other affiliation with FiiO other than as an independent reviewer.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and of course the Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
MY VIEW ON CABLES I need to get this up front very quickly. I personally believe that most of the claims out there about cables increasing things like clarity, sound-stage etc are simply the reviewers who claim it not setting up their comparisons correctly. Let me explain. In my tests, practically all the cables I have tested have had one thing in common, the frequency response does not change, or the changes are so small (mostly a lot less than 1dB – and that is across the whole curve) – so the changes claimed about being brighter or increased bass etc simply are unlikely to be true. I don't doubt that proponents of cable change believe what they are hearing. I am just not experiencing it.
What I can say is that when I have measured, I have often noticed volume changes – and some of these would be very noticeable. In the case of a higher impedance earphone like the MEE P1 – the stock silver-copper hybrid cable actually has a slightly higher impedance that other cables – causing a lower volume. This lower volume is across the whole frequency spectrum though. So for anyone comparing the MEE P1 cable against a FiiO cable – the FiiO cable would be louder. We hear louder things (music) as having more vibrancy, more prominent bass, more detail, more clarity, more apparent sound-stage etc. See where I am coming from? In reality (to me anyway) if I volume match the two cables and then compare – they sound exactly the same.
So why would you bother with an after-market cable? That is actually an easy one. My primary reasons are:
For better fit and comfort
For better connectors (an example is my Fidue A83 which has issues with the stock cable – but these are fixed by an ALO Tinsel)
For better usability – more flexibility, less memory, better microphonics
For alternate connections (e.g. balanced)
For aesthetics – don't discount the pleasure a nice looking cable can bring.
But will a cable never change the sound? Not – it actually can. Often for BA drivers which have an impedance curve with a hump (rather than flat) – if the cable has increased impedance, it can change the frequency response. This is not as common as you'd think though. And if the manufacturer has tuned the earphone – why would I be intentionally looking to change that tuning with an expensive after-market cable, when I could do the same thing easily via EQ?
You may not agree with my stance – and this is not the place for a sermon or a debate. I just thought I'd get my view out there so that if you don't agree, you can stop reading now. Lets also not turn the comments section into a massive debate either. If anyone wants to discuss in the Sound Science section though – let me know the thread and I'm more than happy to discuss further.
This is a purely subjective review of the RC-UE2B cable – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own views.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The RC-UE2B arrived in a small white retail box measuring approximately 80 x 120 x 12mm. On the front is a picture of the RC-UE2B balanced jack, 2 pin connectors, and also a list of compatible IEMs. I didn't have any of the IEMs listed, but I did have a pair of FLC8S which FiiO lists on their website as being compatible.
[size=inherit][/size]
Retail box front
Retail box rear
Retail box contents
On the rear of the box are full specifications as well as a very good pictorial graphic of the pin and jack configuration. It is simple but clean, clear and informative.
Opening the box simply reveals the wound cable and a white shirt clip.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The table below lists most of the relevant specifications.
FiiO RC-UE2B
Approx cost
30-32 USD
Type
Balanced 2 pin after-market cable
Connector Type
UE 2 pin
Compatibility claimed
UE Fi 10 (Pro), Super. Fi 5 Pro, Super. Fi 3 Studio / M-Audio IE-40, IE-30, IE-20XB, IE-10, FLC8 series (custom or universal)
Weight
17-18g
Length
1.2m
Conductor material
26 AWG silver plated copper
Sheathing
Teflon FEP (fluorinated ethylene propylene)
Impedance
0.16 Ω
Individual wires
8 in 4 x 2 configuration
Jack
2.5mm gold plated TRRS
Jack config (tip to base)
R-, R+, L+, L-
BUILD The RC-UE2B is a really pretty looking cable. Considering it's made of silver plated copper it is surprisingly flexible, and definitely not as unruly to control as the FLC8S cable – which is what I was looking to replace.
If we start at the connector end, the RC-UE2B utilises a EU style 2 pin configuration with an angled connector housing and slight recession in the plug to accommodate this type of socket's bump in the housing. The pins are gold plated and to my knowledge are standard 0.75mm. The housing itself is 6mm by 4mm rectangular shaped and made of clear hard polycarbonate. One negative here – it is extremely difficult to see the L/R indicators and if there was anything I would change from the build perspective – it would be the simple inclusion of red and blue dots on the connectors to make channel identification easier.
2 pin UE type connector
You can just make out the "L" if you magnify it enough
The cable exit from the connectors does not have strain relief, but its unlikely to receive a lot of bending, and given the cable material is so sturdy, should not pose issues. The cable has an 8cm section from the sockets which has a very thin extra layer, and this forms a naturally shaped ear-loop. It's not really a mould-able or form-able ear guide – more of a shaping which naturally loops over your ears.
The Y split is a piece of solid very clear polycarbonate and just above this sits a really well fitted hard plastic cinch. The cinch slides smoothly, but also keeps its place nicely – and as you'll read later, is really essential.
Y-split and cinch
The very well built 2.5mm TRRS balanced jack
The 2.5mm TRRS jack is gold plated, and a perfect fit for both the X7 and L3's balanced connectors. The jack has very good strain relief and the amazing thing is actually unscrewing the housing. FiiO have encased the wiring in a hard grey plastic mould – I'm guessing this is to further ensure the shielding and separation of the balanced components.
Cable expanded to show all 8 cores
The nice brand below the Y-split
The cable seems to be really well built. FiiO states that the internals consist of:
11 strands of silver plater copper wire strands (0.08mm each)
these are combined into 8 separate cables which are individually sheathed in Teflon FEP.
These 8 cables then form twisted pairs which have separate L/R channels for each balanced connection
Above the Y-split, each side's cable (2x2 config) is in total <2mm thick.
Below the Y-split, the cable (now 2 sets of 2x2 config) is in total <4mm thick
FiiO's photo showing the cable make-up is imemdiately below - it explains things quite nicely Apart from the L/R indicators I cannot fault the overall build on this cable. For ~$30 this is really impressive.
DESIGN / FIT / MICROPHONICS I'll start with the good. The cable does have slight memory (most silver plated cables do), but its much better than a lot of copper cables I've tried. It is pretty flexible, and is not overly tangly or unmanageable. I did find the first week of using it could cause sore spots on my ears (where the cable rests). This has dissipated pretty well – but I do wonder whether a slightly heavier cover over this 8cm section could further alleviate some of this. Overall though pretty comfortable.
Where there is a major issue is the choice of outer sheath and the resulting microphonics. The cable noise is really quite noticeable. Touching the outer sheath transmits a lot of microphonics, and wearing it loose outside clothing is simply not an option (if you value your sanity anyway). This is the one single area FiiO do need to do some work on for future releases. To be fair, more expensive cables like ALO's Tinsel also have some issues with microphonics so they aren't alone with this issue. ALO's new Litz cable though is an example of how good a quality cable can be – and personally I'd rather pay a little more for a largely microphonic free cable. Fortunately the cinch works very well, and if I tucked the cable under clothing and used the cinch, noise was kept to a bare minimum, and they were even really good for walking.
Some cable management is essential though.
COMPATIBILITY & MODIFICATION Sunny sent me the cables after I requested them – mainly for testing the AM3 module, and also because I wanted to try the RC-UE2B with the FLC8S. When I tried them -I could get the first 1-2mm into the socket, and then they were so tight that forcing them further was risking damage to the sockets (I wasn't prepared to risk it). I can't tell if this is just my pair – or if it is applicable to others - but it is worth noting.
Unfortunately my pair of FLC8S were a no-go
Pins slightly too big for the sockets
So my next step was to see if they would work with my other 2 pin IEMs. I first tried the 64Audio Adel U6 – and surprisingly they fit,although the cable was a little loose. I also tried with my Alclair Curve – and had the same experience.
A surprising fit with the U6 (although loose)
And also the Alclair Curve
The solution was simply to modify the polycarbonate connector, and cut out the recessed section to expose the connectors a little more. After this was done, the fit with both IEMs was much better.
Modification (removal) of the polycarb recess/overhang
The U6 now fit a lot better
It's been fantastic to be able to listen to the U6 and Curve balanced and for such a small overall price.
TRINITY IEMS Before I finished, I suddenly realised that I had other 2 pin IEMs I hadn't tried - namely the Delta V2 and Sabre from Trinity Audio. Amazingly, the fit is perfect - they won't fit the recess, but after modification you can still at least get a flush fit good enough for everyday use.
Trinity Delta - slightly exposed but still snug
And also quite firm
Trinity Sabre - can't fit the recess
But with recess removed they fit quite snugly
GRAPHS Dilemma how do you measure a cable (to check for differences) without having the possible differences between balanced and single-ended nullifying what you're trying to measure? The good news is that I received a balanced to single-ended adaptor among the cables included with Fidue's new Sirius hybrid IEM – so I could effectively measure and compare:
the stock cable – single ended
the balanced FiiO cable – converted to single ended
In the graphs below I measured both the Alclair Curve and also the 64 Audio Adel U6 with stock cable and also using the RC-UE2B balanced cable converted to single ended. The graphs are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the near future.
With the Alclair Curve – a dual BA – the two frequency curves are for all intents and purposes identical. The actual difference was 0.5 dB between the two. And if I had been doing a blind test on the two cables without volume matching, the FiiO cable may have sounded slightly more detailed and slightly clearer. The benefit of being able to measure and show the 0.5 dB difference is invaluable in this situation.
Measuring the U6 was just as enlightening. This is a 6 BA per side with appropriate crossovers – so there is plenty of room for impedance miss matches and changed frequency responses. But with the cables, all you'll see are some very minor changes – most of them well under 1 dB, and some of them will be attributable to reseating the IEMs. Is there a possibility for change in frequency response – in some cases definitely yes. But in the two I've shown you (and the U6 one would have been closer if I'd adjusted the stock cable down by about 0.2-0.4 dB instead of leaving it as measured).
For the record, when actual listening – I couldn't tell any real differences. It could be that my hearing isn't as acute as some people who report such sound variations. All I can do is present you what I hear and what I measure, and leave you to draw your own conclusions.
SINGLE ENDED vs BALANCED WITH RC-UE2B Unfortunately this was one exercise I couldn't perform with my U6. My right side has developed an imbalance – so it is due for RMA next week (BTW great service from 64Audio – they are brilliant to work with). So the only configuration I could check was with the Alclair Curve. I volume matched and used Fidue's Sirius adaptor, and swapped back and forth. It was a sighted test – so bear that in mind. For my hearing I would not be able to tell the two apart in a blind volume matched test. I know the crosstalk is better and distortion is lower in the balanced measurements. But for me personally – the benefit of balanced would be the ability to drive harder loads a little more easily. In the case of my Curve, this is not applicable – but with an IEM like the MEE P1 (see my RC-SE1B review), the use of balanced can be really handy.
Now just in case some of you are thinking “Brooko should maybe stop reviewing – his ears are getting shot”, I thought I'd back up the test with a direct comparison of the balanced and single ended output of the L&P L3. For this I used the FiiO cable and also the adaptor from the Sirius. In the graph below you will see the curve from the single ended raw output, the balanced raw output and the comparison when you apply ~ 6dB of volume adjustment to match them. The reason they look slightly different from the other graphs is that this time the L3 was used as a DAC and it has a noticeable filter roll-off compared to the “flat” sound-card I use for most of my testing. There was also a few days between testing, and it's practically impossible to get the tips on the coupler exactly the same.
Anyway – my ears aren't fooling me. The outputs are essentially audibly identical once volume matched.
SUMMARY FIIO RC-UE2B
For a cable agnostic like me, this was going to be an interesting exercise. I wanted this particular cable because it was cheap, had a balanced connection, and so I could use it with my FCL8S. As the song goes, two out of three ain't bad (not fit on the FLC8S), but I was lucky enough to be able to test with the U6 and Curve instead.
There are a lot of positives with the RC-UE2B. It is extremely well built, looks fantastic, and has pretty low impedance – so its not going to be adding its own flavour. It is also very affordable which is an absolute bonus for those looking for a balanced cable but don't want to spend big bucks.
On the negative side with this one is the high microphonics (can be mitigated through use of the cinch and sensible cable management), and the fact that I couldn't use it for the FLC8S. If you are particular about the need for low microphonics and aren't open to use of cable management, my advice is to steer clear of the FiiO cables for now.
Overall though I have no problems giving a 3/5 for the RC-UE2B. The value and build quality is hard to fault. If FiiO could refine it a little more with a different sheath material, and better R/L markings it would make it even better value.
FINAL THANKS Once again thanks to Sunny at FiiO for giving me a chance to try the RC-UE2B.
This cable cost $31 from amazon and given the price I wanted to give it a try to experience the balanced output. After getting ak100ii, I was using it single ended mode for a week before trying this cable. I've a u12 (with MAM) and the cable fit perfectly without any modifications. I didn't need to do the "removal of the polycarb recess/overhang" step that Brooko did.
The sound: I wasn't expecting any big difference. But the combination of balanced output and this cable really takes the sound, the soundstage to a new level. The treble has a sparkle too. The overall sound is more airy and the sound stage is wider with good separation. To my ears, it is heaven.
I've to have the volume at a higher level in balanced mode that I do with while in single ended mode. Even if the price isn't $31, this cable is providing amazing listening experience and with the $31 price, this is outstanding. Extremely happy.
When searching for a review, I had a feeling, if one was out there, it would be yours. Thanks for another solid review, you and I share similar thoughts on cable swap claims! Looking at picking up a balanced DAP as well as the P1, already own the UE TF10 so this is pretty much a no brainer given the minimal investment.
Pros: Overall build quality, flexibility, standard connectors, cinch, aesthetics
Cons: Microphonics, over ear section can initially be uncomfortable, very difficult to see L/R indicators
For larger (1200 x 800) images, click any picture
(the above photo is one of FiiO's stock images - credit to them for the fine photography)
INTRODUCTION
I'm pretty much a cable agnostic. I don't believe in magic – I do believe in measurable changes, and do believe they can affect the sound to a certain extent. But the stuff they change can be measured, and as long as we don't try to look for something that's not really there, then I have no issues. I'm usually a sceptic regarding some of the claims that cables can make – and experimenting has helped me a lot with my understanding.
For me – the most important things about a cable are the build, connection/connector quality, flexibility, aesthetics, fit and comfort, level of noise or microphonics. The only real interest I have in sound is that I would prefer it doesn't overly alter the sonics of my earphones. For that I can use EQ, or tip roll. I would never buy a cable because it sounds better. We'll get into that during the review.
You will notice that I've also posted a review on the FiiO RC-UE2B, and that a lot of the review is identical. This is because a lot of the build, packaging etc is also identical. Hopefully you will allow me to reprint same sections in both reviews. In the matter of cables – it is simply not practical to rewrite entire sections when they will contain the same things.
Lastly – my reasons for asking FiiO about the cables was primarily so I could test the new AM3 balanced connection on the X7, and also the Luxury & Precision L3.
ABOUT FIIO By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary. FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. They debuted their first DAP (the X3) in 2013, and despite some early hiccups with developing the UI, have worked with their customer base to continually develop the firmware for a better user experience. The X3 was followed by the X5, X1, X3 2nd Gen (X3ii), X5 2nd Gen (X5ii), M3 and X7. They now have a full range of DAPs, DAC/amps, amps, cables and interconnects, and are even starting to release their own earphones (designed and manufactured in partnership with other OEMs).
FiiO’s products have followed a very simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.
DISCLAIMER The RC-SE1B cable was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I had made it clear to FiiO in the past that I did regard any product they sent me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request.
FiiO have told me earlier this year that they will no longer accept any payment from me for gear I'd like to keep for myself - they have insisted any future review models are mine to keep. So I acknowledge now that the RC-SE1B I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I thank FiiO for their generosity. I own and have paid for the E7, E9, E11, E11K, X1, and X5 in the past. I get no form of recompense or payment for these reviews, and I have no other affiliation with FiiO other than as an independent reviewer.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and of course the Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
MY VIEW ON CABLES I need to get this up front very quickly. I personally believe that most of the claims out there about cables increasing things like clarity, sound-stage etc are simply the reviewers who claim it not setting up their comparisons correctly. Let me explain. In my tests, practically all the cables I have tested have had one thing in common, the frequency response does not change, or the changes are so small (mostly a lot less than 1dB – and that is across the whole curve) – so the changes claimed about being brighter or increased bass etc simply are unlikely to be true. I don't doubt that proponents of cable change believe what they are hearing. I am just not experiencing it.
What I can say is that when I have measured, I have often noticed volume changes – and some of these would be very noticeable. In the case of a higher impedance earphone like the MEE P1 – the stock silver-copper hybrid cable actually has a slightly higher impedance that other cables – causing a lower volume. This lower volume is across the whole frequency spectrum though. So for anyone comparing the MEE P1 cable against a FiiO cable – the FiiO cable would be louder. We hear louder things (music) as having more vibrancy, more prominent bass, more detail, more clarity, more apparent sound-stage etc. See where I am coming from? In reality (to me anyway) if I volume match the two cables and then compare – they sound exactly the same.
So why would you bother with an after-market cable? That is actually an easy one. My primary reasons are:
For better fit and comfort
For better connectors (an example is my Fidue A83 which has issues with the stock cable – but these are fixed by an ALO Tinsel)
For better usability – more flexibility, less memory, better microphonics
For alternate connections (e.g. balanced)
For aesthetics – don't discount the pleasure a nice looking cable can bring.
But will a cable never change the sound? Not – it actually can. Often for BA drivers which have an impedance curve with a hump (rather than flat) – if the cable has increased impedance, it can change the frequency response. This is not as common as you'd think though. And if the manufacturer has tuned the earphone – why would I be intentionally looking to change that tuning with an expensive after-market cable, when I could do the same thing easily via EQ?
You may not agree with my stance – and this is not the place for a sermon or a debate. I just thought I'd get my view out there so that if you don't agree, you can stop reading now. Lets also not turn the comments section into a massive debate either. If anyone wants to discuss in the Sound Science section though – let me know the thread and I'm more than happy to discuss further.
This is a purely subjective review of the RC-SE1B cable – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own views.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The RC-SE1B arrived in a small white retail box measuring approximately 80 x 120 x 12mm. On the front is a picture of the RC-SE1B balanced jack, MMCX connectors, and also a list of some of the compatible IEMs. While I didn't have any of the IEMs listed, I did have several pairs of IEMs which take standard MMCX connectors so there was no issue with having enoguh compatible earphones to connect.
[size=inherit][/size]
Front of the box
Rear of the box
Contents
On the rear of the box are full specifications as well as a very good pictorial graphic of the MMCX and jack configuration. It is simple but clean, clear and informative.
Opening the box simply reveals the wound cable and a white shirt clip.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The table below lists most of the relevant specifications.
FiiO RC-SE1B
Approx cost
30-32 USD
Type
Balanced MMCX after-market cable
Connector Type
Standard MMCX
Compatibility
Should fit most IEMs with standard MMCX connection
Weight
18g
Length
1.2m
Conductor material
26 AWG silver plated copper
Sheathing
Teflon FEP (fluorinated ethylene propylene)
Impedance
0.16 Ω
Individual wires
8 in 4 x 2 configuration
Jack
2.5mm gold plated TRRS
Jack config (tip to base)
R-, R+, L+, L-
BUILD The RC-SE1B is a really pretty looking cable. Considering it's made of silver plated copper it is surprisingly flexible, and I was keen to try it alongside the ALO Tinsel cables I have, as well as those from Trinity Audio and other manufacturers.
Standard MMCX connectors
If you look really hard you can just make out the letter "R"
If we start at the connector end, the RC-SE1B utilises a standard MMCX configuration with a fairly standard conical connector housing. The connections are gold plated and seem to be a very standard fit – I'm able to use most of my standard IEMs with MMCX connectors (including the Trinity Atlas, Fidue A83 and A91, MEE P1 and Oriveti Primacy. The housing around the connectors conical, 12mm in length and 7mm in diameter, and made of clear hard polycarbonate. One negative here – it is extremely difficult to see the L/R indicators and if there was anything I would change from the build perspective – it would be the simple inclusion of red and blue dots on the connectors to make channel identification easier.
The cable exit from the connectors does not have strain relief, but its unlikely to receive a lot of bending, and given the cable material is so sturdy, should not pose issues. The cable has an 8cm section from the sockets which has a very thin extra layer, and this forms a naturally shaped ear-loop. It's not really a mould-able or form-able ear guide – more of a shaping which naturally loops over your ears.
Y-split and cinch
2.5mm TRRS jack
The Y split is a piece of solid very clear polycarbonate and just above this sits a really well fitted hard plastic cinch. The cinch slides smoothly, but also keeps its place nicely – and as you'll read later, is really essential.
The 2.5mm TRRS jack is gold plated, and a perfect fit for both the X7 and L3's balanced connectors. The jack has very good strain relief and the amazing thing is actually unscrewing the housing. FiiO have encased the wiring in a hard grey plastic mould – I'm guessing this is to further ensure the shielding and separation of the balanced components.
Cable unravelled slightly to show 8 separate wires
The really nice coil to make up main cable
The cable seems to be really well built. FiiO states that the internals consist of:
11 strands of silver plater copper wire strands (0.08mm each)
these are combined into 8 separate cables which are individually sheathed in Teflon FEP.
These 8 cables then form twisted pairs which have separate L/R channels for each balanced connection
Above the Y-split, each side's cable (2x2 config) is in total <2mm thick.
Below the Y-split, the cable (now 2 sets of 2x2 config) is in total <4mm thick
FiiO's photo showing the cable make-up is imemdiately below - it explains things quite nicely Apart from the L/R indicators I cannot fault the overall build on this cable. For ~$30 this is really impressive.
DESIGN / FIT / MICROPHONICS I'll start with the good. The cable does have slight memory (most silver plated cables do), but its much better than a lot of copper cables I've tried. It is pretty flexible, and is not overly tangly or unmanageable. I did find the first week of using it could cause sore spots on my ears (where the cable rests). This has dissipated pretty well – but I do wonder whether a slightly heavier cover over this 8cm section could further alleviate some of this. Overall though pretty comfortable.
Where there is a major issue is the choice of outer sheath and the resulting microphonics. The cable noise is really quite noticeable. Touching the outer sheath transmits a lot of microphonics, and wearing it loose outside clothing is simply not an option (if you value your sanity anyway). This is the one single area FiiO do need to do some work on for future releases. To be fair, more expensive cables like ALO's Tinsel also have some issues with microphonics so they aren't alone with this issue. ALO's new Litz cable though is an example of how good a quality cable can be – and personally I'd rather pay a little more for a largely microphonic free cable. Fortunately the cinch works very well, and if I tucked the cable under clothing and used the cinch, noise was kept to a bare minimum, and they were even really good for walking.
Some cable management is essential though.
COMPATIBILITY & CONNECTOR FIT As outlined above, so far I've been able to use the RC-SE1B with my Trinity Atlas, Fidue A83 and A91, MEE P1 and Oriveti Primacy. I did try it with the Dunu Titan series and 2002, as well as the q-Jays, but as expected there were connector compatibility issues with these earphones. So far I've been impressed with the fit of the connectors – they have snapped together well with the IEMs which have a standard connector, and the connections have been solid with no drop outs.
The original Atlas
The MEE P1
FiiO states that the RC-SE1B will fit most standard connectors, and that will include the Shure family SE215, SE315, SE425, SE846, UE900 and UE900S, JVC HA-FX850 and HA-FX1200.
The connector fit hasn't been quite as solid as the ALO Tinsel cables – but it doesn't seem to be too far away.
GRAPHS Dilemma how do you measure a cable (to check for differences) without having the possible differences between balanced and single-ended nullifying what you're trying to measure? The good news is that I received a balanced to single-ended adaptor among the cables included with Fidue's new Sirius hybrid IEM – so I could effectively measure and compare a variety of earphones with:
the stock cable – single ended
the balanced FiiO cable – converted to single ended
the ALO Tinsel cable either balanced or single ended
In the graphs below I measured both the MEE P1 and also the Trinity Atlas. For the Atlas – I used my “special pair” - which have a slightly different tuning to the factory standard release. The graphs are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the near future.
First up is the Atlas (remember my special pair is not the default sig – this is bass light and mid-range accentuated). The Atlas is a single BA and single dynamic hybrid. In the first graph we see the default Trinity cable (blue) the FiiO RC-SE1B (red) and the ALO Tinsel (yellow). Note how close they are.
Now lets see the same graph with the FiiO cable – 0.5 dB and the Tinsel + 0.5 dB. With volume matching they are all now showing essentially the same plot. Listening and I can't really tell a difference between all 3 cables from a single-ended source (using the adaptor). If you had particularly acute hearing you may perceive the volume differences, but as demonstrated, if volume matched – they sound the same.
Measuring the MEE P1 was more enlightening. This is single dynamic driver and I know it has a pretty flat impedance curve. The difference with the P1 is that at 50 ohms impedance and 96 dB (1 mW at 1 kHz), it is not the easiest to drive.
If we look at the first graph showing raw unmatched data – this time we can see a bigger discrepancy with the FiiO cable being the loudest, the ALO Tinsel about 0.6dB softer than the FiiO, and the stock cable a whopping 2.2 dB below that. Again after volume matching properly, the similarities are obvious. If you can tell these cables apart in a blind test when properly volume matched, then you may just be superhuman!
Again, when actually listening the stock cable was easy to differentiate (it was much quieter), and the Tinsel and RC-SE1B sounded pretty much the same to me. After volume matching I couldn't tell any of them apart. As I said in the the other review, it could be that my hearing isn't as acute as some people who report such sound variations. All I can do is present you what I hear and what I measure, and leave you to draw your own conclusions.
SINGLE ENDED vs BALANCED WITH THE RC-SE1B The MEE P1 was always going to be the IEM to benefit most from a balanced set-up. This is simply because of the added power output. For this test I used the X7 with AM3 – with the X7 in DAC mode. I volume matched and used Fidue's Sirius adaptor, and swapped back and forth. It was a sighted test – so bear that in mind.
For my hearing I would not be able to tell the two apart in a blind volume matched test. I know the crosstalk is better and distortion is lower in the balanced measurements. But for me personally – the benefit of balanced is the ability to drive harder loads a little more easily. With a harder to drive IEM like the MEE P1, the use of balanced can be really handy.
Now just in case some of you are thinking “Brooko should maybe stop reviewing – his ears are getting shot”, I thought I'd back up the test with a direct comparison of the balanced and single ended output of the FiiO X7 + AM3. For this I used the FiiO cable and also the adaptor from the Sirius. In the graph below you will see the frequency response from the single ended raw output, the balanced raw output and the comparison when you apply ~ 4.5dB of volume adjustment to match them. The reason they look slightly different from the other graphs is that this time the X7 was used as a DAC and it has a noticeable filter roll-off compared to the “flat” sound-card I use for most of my testing. There was also a few days between testing, and it's practically impossible to get the tips on the coupler exactly the same.
Anyway – my ears aren't fooling me. The outputs are essentially audibly identical once volume matched.
SUMMARY FIIO RC-SE1B
For a cable agnostic like me, this was going to be an interesting exercise. I wanted to try this particular cable because it was cheap, had a balanced connection, and I could compare it with the ALO Tinsel and also use it with my MMCX enabled IEMs.
There are a lot of positives with the RC-SE1B. It is extremely well built, looks fantastic, and has pretty low impedance – so its not going to be adding its own flavour. It is also very affordable which is an absolute bonus for those looking for a balanced cable but don't want to spend big bucks. It also has a standard socket connection – so will work well with most MMCX enabled standard connectors.
On the negative side with this one is the high microphonics (can be mitigated through use of the cinch and sensible cable management). However if you are particular about the need for low microphonics and aren't open to use of cable management, my advice is to steer clear of the FiiO cables for now.
Overall though I have no problems giving a 3/5 for the RC-SE1B. The value and build quality is hard to fault. If FiiO could refine it a little more with a different sheath material, and better R/L markings it would make it even better value.
FINAL THANKS Once again thanks to Sunny at FiiO for giving me a chance to try the RC-SE1B.
I reviewed Fiio's original RC cable a few years ago and the microphonics issue was as bad and quite irritating. On everything else we agreed to disagree , but I was hoping they are going to address microphonics. I guess it's tolerable when you are sitting still, enjoying music, but definitely not as you move around.
Its actually not bad as long as you are prepared to use the cinch, and tuck the cable under clothes. I went for a 10k walk a couple of days ago with the Atlas, and never really noticed any noise. I'd love to see them address it though.
Pros: Sound quality, tonal balance, value, comfort, included microphone and on-cable control, good build for the price
Cons: L/R markings hard to see, included foams slip off
For larger views of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
If you'd asked me my thoughts on ear-buds a few years ago – I would probably have turned up my nose a little, and my thoughts would have been cast back to the cheap buds you'd get with your MP3 player. Even when Apple started with their first ear-buds, they were lacking bass and nothing to really write home about. All that changed when I was introduced to Venture Electronics ear-bud range (Monk, Asura and Zen), and I learned just how good a properly tuned ear-bud could be. So when Sunny from FiiO reached out to me and asked if I'd take their EM3 ear-bud for a test-run, I was interested to see what they'd managed to create and also how it compared with the VE Monk and Monk Plus – which to me are now the gold standards for budget ear-buds.
ABOUT FiiO By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary. FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. They debuted their first DAP (the X3) in 2013, and despite some early hiccups with developing the UI, have worked with their customer base to continually develop the firmware for a better user experience. The X3 was followed by the X5, X1, X3 2nd Gen (X3ii), X5 2nd Gen (X5ii), M3 and X7. They also have a full range of amplifiers, DAC/amps, cables and now with the EM3 they have entered the ear-bud market.
FiiO’s products have followed a very simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.
DISCLAIMER The EM3 was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to FiiO in the past that I did regard any product they sent me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. I will continue to use the EM3 for follow up reviews and my own personal use. This is one of their items I would definitely buy from FiiO but they have insisted any future review models are mine to keep (they will not accept payment). So I acknowledge now that the EM3 I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I thank FiiO for their generosity. I own and have paid for the E7, E9, E11, E11K, X1, and X5 in the past.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
I’ve used the EM3 from a variety of sources, but for main body of this review, I’ve used it primarily with my FiiO X3ii combined with the E11K amp, my iPhone and the tiny FiiO M3. In the time I have spent with the EM3, I have noticed no change in the overall sonic presentation – except for when I have changed variables such as covers.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The EM3 came in a smart little white printed retail box measuring 45 x 145 x 21mm. The box has a picture of the EM3 on the front, and specifications and QR codes (auto links to their various social media and web portals. There is also an authenticity sticker.
Front of the retail FiiO EM3 box
Rear of the retail box
Opening the box reveals a slide-out inner tray which contains the manual + warranty, EM3 ear-buds, and a small box with three sets of black foam covers. A translucent frosted cover keeps everything nicely contained.
Interior of retail box and contents
Accessories
So a very minimal accessory package (which is OK considering the price), and the foams (and spares) is a welcome addition at this price point.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (From FiiO)
Type
Open dynamic ear-bud
Driver
14.8 mm dynamic
Frequency Range
20 Hz – 20 Khz
Impedance
47 ohm
Sensitivity
109dB (1mW)
Plug
3.5mm gold plated, right angled jack
Cable
1.2m, TPE outer coat, ofc copper
Weight
Approx 14g with single full foam covers
IEM Shell
Polycarbonate / hard plastic
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN The EM3 departs from the generic style of flatter ear-buds, and almost looks like a crossover between traditional styles and Apple's ear-pods. The face looks very much like a more traditional flat face, but from there the acoustic chamber extends to a more conical shape, and then to a more traditional arm extension to the cable. The front face measures approx 16mm and is fully covered in a mesh screen to protect the drivers. The housing is conical and measures 16mm deep. The cable exit/arm measures 20mm brining the overall length of the shall to approximately 30mm. The shell is a black glossy hard polycarbonate plastic and feels reasonably sturdy. There is a very small (and difficult to see) L/R marking on the arm, above what looks to be a second bass port (the first is on the conical housing).
Front face and mesh
From the rear
At the cable exit, there is good rubber strain relief. The cable is reasonable thickness, and at first glance looks a bit flimsy, but looks can be very deceiving. FiiO has sheathed the ofc copper cable in a very low noise TPE cover, and this adds high tensile strength and durability. It is quite satiny, and not prone to tangling.
Cable exits
Side view
Approx 11cm from the cable exit on the left hand side is a single button remote and microphone. This unit hangs just under my jaw (so ideal height for the mic). The on cable controls work perfectly with my iPhone 5S, allowing play/pause (one push), next track (two pushes), and previous track (three pushes). A single long push also activates Siri which is really handy. I also tried them with my wife's Galaxy, and everything worked perfectly except for the previous track (3 pushes) – it simply advanced the track and either paused or played (depending what was active). With the FiiO M3 and X1, the buttons also worked perfectly.
Single push button on-cable control
Microphone port
The microphone is crystal clear for calls, as is the audio, and the M3 has become my default for use my iPhone 5S. I always have it in my work briefcase, and if I know I'm expecting a call it is my first choice of headset.
Below this (about mid-chest) is a generic rubber y-split. It has no strain relief, but none is probably needed, as this section of the cable usually hangs unencumbered, and the TPE sheathing should be pretty protective anyway. The cable terminates at a 4 pole gold plated right angled jack with very good strain relief.
Jack
Y-split
My only critique would be the hard to spot L/R markings (which is somewhat mitigated by the control always being on the left side)
FIT / COMFORT Since I've been testing the various ear-buds from Venture Electronics, I’ve been using ear-buds a lot more than I used to. The fit on the FiiO was a little harder to get used to because of the deeper housing, but after a little practise it became easier. Naked does seem to fit extremely well, although I sometimes have to adjust the angle to get a more consistent sound. I did try the included black foams, but I soon found that because of the shape of the housing, when removing the ear-piece I would often leave the cover in my outer ear (annoying).
Included black foams
Tin foams from the Monk Plus or VE Expansion Pack
I've played around with fit a lot since I've had them – and while I really enjoy the sound of the EM3 without covers, ultimately a thin cover does help consistent fit. The trade-off is a warmer sound (which some will probably prefer anyway). You could also use fins from the new VE expansion pack, and I would recommend anyone with a FiiO EM3 who wants to experiment with cover combinations to give this pack a try - there are plenty of options.
VE Expansion Pack
A multitude of different options for getting the right fit, comfort and sound
Basically the fins sit over the housing, with the fin part angled upward and forward. The ear-bud body sits normally in the concha cavum (tucked inside the tragus and anti tragus), and the fin lies alongside the anti helix and basically locks against the concha cymba. This drastically aids stability and consistency, and if you are careful, allows you to angle the EM3 perfectly to meet your individual preference. It also allows a slightly better seal (by widening the body) which also affects bass response.
The VE rings fitted
Foams go over the top - perfect!
My preference at the moment is using the VE rings (to keep the foams on), an using the very thin VE foams over the top. As far as isolation goes – it is an ear-bud – so any isolation is minimal.
FREQUENCY GRAPHS The one thing I've learnt over time is that everyone has very different preferences, very different physiology, and very different experiences with different covers. This makes it really difficult as a reviewer as all I can relate is my own experience. The issue remains of how to show differences between the cover options, but also remain consistent.
So I jury-rigged a simply but reasonable effective attachment mechanism whereby I could couple the ear-bud to the Veritas coupler consistently and with the same pressure each time (in this case enough to hold in place but no more). What I've been trying to do is emulate the fit of the ear-bud. with and without covers.
The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
EM3 with no cover - thin foams have similar response - note channel matching
Using ear-hooks and EM3 black covers (too much warmth)
Further in the review I’ve added comparisons to the VE Monk and Monk Plus as well as comparative measurements. One thing to take into account with all graphs in the review is that they will give very different reading dependent on the degree of seal you achieve. So use them as a comparative guide for discussion – but individual fit and experience will vary.
What I’m hearing (no covers or thin foams fitted):
Slightly warm and smooth signature – with decent bass response.
Bass overall is more mid-bass centric than sub-bass oriented, but there is enough sub bass to give a very gentle rumble if you get a good enough seal.
Mid-range is reasonably well balanced (for both male and female vocals), and there is enough of a lift in the presence area to give female vocals life and sweetness.
Treble is a little subdued, but there is a peak in the lower treble at around 7 kHz which does give cymbals and hi-hats some shimmer and decay.
Overall warm, a little smooth, but with enough detail to make them enjoyable.
Note that most of the above was with the very thin red and blue covers from the Monk Plus – without any covers at all I get a little more treble, and a little less bass.
I also tried them with a pair of ear-hooks and the default black covers. The first thing I noticed was an increase in bass, and also a little less in both the mid-range and lower treble. For my preferences, I don't really like any more bass, or less upper end – they just end up sounding a mid overly warm and veiled. So for me, any thicker foams than the VE new Monk Plus red and blue thin foams are to be avoided.
Another point to note is the extremely good channel matching (shown in the graph). Any small variations could also be the seating on the Veritas coupler (really hard to get consistent with ear-buds).
The best way to get to an ideal for your own personal preferences is to simply experiment. Get an expansion pack from VE (Venture Electronics) and try each cover by itself or in combination with other covers. It costs next to nothing and is quite an interesting exercise.
I've also included graphs for the EM3 vs both Monk and Monk Plus below. I'll talk more about them in the comparison sections. Each have their strengths and each can change dramatically with different covers and hooks. The irony here is that really speaking the graphs are going to be meaningless except as a very rough indicator. This is mainly because it is the combination of cover and your own physiology which work together to create a semi-seal. And this can dramatically affect the entire response curve.
EM3 vs Monk original
EM3 vs Monk Plus
POWER REQUIREMENTS
The EM3 are 47 ohms, and with their sensitivity of 109 dB they can easily be driven well out of most portable devices without the need for any further amplification. Saying that though, I have enjoyed the EM3 immensely with the FiiO X1 or X3ii paired with FiiO's own E17K (or the IMS HVA).
To give you an idea in order to achieve an average listening SPL of 65-70 dB at the ear (plenty of volume for me)
FiiO X1 – 30-32/100 low gain, no replay gain or EQ.
FiiO X3ii – 41-43/120 low gain, no replay gain or EQ.
iPhone 5S – approx. 7/16 (45%) clicks of volume.
FiiO M3 (tiny $55 DAP) – 18-20/60 volume.
I used a calibrated SPL meter – but just an average reading on the same piece of music each time (a weighted). As you can see – all the devices had ample volume left on the pot.
When I tried amping with E17K and HVA – there was a slight change of tonality with the HVA but I noticed no increase in overall dynamics – naturally YMMV.
EQUALISATION After a while getting used to the EM3, I've found no real need to EQ (using the Monk Plus foams). I did want to try lowering the mid-bass and seeing what that would do, so I used the X7 and AM3 module and simply dropped at 62 and 250 Hz by about 2 dB and the slider at 125 Hz by around 3 dB. They were only minor changes, but to me I actually preferred the original signature. All I can conclude from this is that frequency response from the coupler is probably giving me a better seal than what my ears are providing – and what I'm hearing is a little closer to neutral than the graph would suggest.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the EM3. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). For my testing I used the FiiO X3ii + E17K, no EQ, low gain, and a volume at around 20/60 on the E17K giving me an SPL ranging from about 65-75 dB (a weighted) at the ear. I used the Monk Plus thin foam covers because they suit my ears the best.
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used: Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
Reasonable balance with slightly heightened mid-bass and a little accentuation in the upper mid-range
Good detail retrieval, and I didn't find the mid-bass too problematic
Cymbals have good presence and decay – they aren't highlighted though
Guitar can be slightly sharp with the upper-mid boost
Resolution is good without being a detail monster (micro details are still present)
Sound-stage & Imaging (+ Sibilance) Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
Nicely open sounding
Good sense of width and projection is out of head
Sense of depth is a little limited
Imaging is good and overall separation of instruments is much better than the low cost would indicate
Immersion is good (applause section of Dante's Prayer) with impression that crowd is either side of you – but a little lacking in depth though
Sibilance is revealed in “Let It Rain” - but not magnified (surprising for me as normally a peak around 7kHz can trigger some heightened sibilance). The overall holographic nature of the track “Let it Rain” is very well portrayed though – really enjoyable.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Mid-bass has very good impact for an ear-bud.
Bass slam is just a little flat and not really boomy at all. No signs of bleed. Into the mid-range.
Good projection of bass timbre and texture (Mark's vocals in “Muddy Waters”). Mark's vocals have great overall presentation, and I really enjoyed the dark and broody nature of this blues track on the EM3.
Enough sub-bass for rumble to be audible, but slightly subdued (“Royals”)
Again good separation between mid-bass thump and vocals (“Royals”). Ella's vocals are very clear and slightly euphonic. Love this tuning with this track.
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake me Up, Ship To Wreck.
Excellent transition from lower-mids to upper-mids. Aventine was brilliant and this is often a hard track to get right.
Euphonic presentation with good air and a touch of sweetness to female vocals
Beautiful contrast between vocals and lower pitch of instruments like cello (Aventine)
No signs of stridency, and played all my female vocalists exceptionally well. In a quiet setting I would have no issues listening to the EM3 for hours with my favourite female artists.
Really good contrast with rock tracks (Feist, FaTM) with a bit of bass slam.
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Again a lot of really good dynamic slam from the bass, and nice contrast with a slightly sharp upper mid-range (providing good presence with lead guitar and with brass instruments)
Male vocals have plenty of body – maybe not as much presence as female vocalists – but not really lacking.
Older rock tracks like 10CC's Art for Art's Sake were exceptional – clear, dynamic, and detailed
Brilliant with acoustic rock too – Hotel California was spacious, clear and the live version was a joy to listen to. I'm enjoying male vocals with the EM3 – good timbre and tone.
Pearl Jam was brilliant – the EM3 portrayed Vedder well. Excellent texture and tonality. Good clarity on cymbals too which are quite prominent with this track.
Other Genres
the EM3 seems to handle all forms of rock really well, and particularly Alt Rock (Floyd and Porcupine Tree). I think its the combination of tonal balance and clarity.
Really enjoyable with both Blues and Jazz and again I'm struck by the overall balance. The mid-bass could effectively come down the smallest of notches to make it perfect – but there is great detail overall. Sax is really smooth (Portico Quartet), and I'm loving the contrast with double bass and cymbals
Quite good with both Hip-hop and Electronic, and very enjoyable with trance (its not visceral though). Could probably use just a little more impact with these genres, but doesn't sound too thin or anaemic. Lighter electronic (the Flashbulb) was incredibly good.
Pop was good – Adele live at the Albert Hall was pretty epic, and although the mid-range was accentuated a bit, it wasn't overly strident or shouty. Indie was really good. I thought it might come across as a bit bright, but I ended up really enjoying both Band of Horses and Wildlight.
Classical was really good with the EM3 and I really would recommend them. Enough space (width) to really captivate for larger orchestral pieces (a little more depth would have been the icing on the cake). Brilliant with solo cello (Zoe Keating) and thoroughly enjoyed Opera with them also (Netrebko/Garanca). Tonally very easy to listen to while conveying instruments with enough realism to allow you to get lost in the music.
COMPARISONS The obvious questions here will be how the EM3 compares to VE's original Monk and Monk Plus (with all 3 sitting nicely in the budget segment). I also added a small section on the Apple Ear-pods, and also FiiO's own earphone which they included with the M3 DAP.
For the comparisons, all were driven out of the FiiO X11 with E17K. I used the same tracks, and volume matched as well as I could with an SPL meter (difficult due to the shape). These views are incredibly subjective – your own experience may draw different conclusions
EM3 vs Monk Original
The original Monk was priced at around USD 5.00, so they are in a similar value segment. If you bought the extension pack with the Monk, you would get copious accessories for a matched price (around USD 10.00) – so on accessories the Monk + Expansion pack wins easily. My advice is to buy a VE expansion pack if you intend to buy the EM3. Both are built well. The Monk's generic housing and sturdier cable do feel a little more robust though. The EM3 has the remote and mic – which for my use cannot be understated. With fit, I do find the slightly flatter generic body of the Monk to fit a little better – although both ultimately are pretty comfortable. For the sonic comparison I am using the Monk with full foams, and the EM3 with the light VE foams (both are my own preferences). Both have a similar overall signature in this comparison with a slightly warm full bass, and forward mid-range. The biggest difference is that the Monk actually has more mid-bass and slightly shaper mid-range. It is also more forward sounding – the EM3 just sounds a little more spacious in this configuration. The EM3 is a little flatter and a little brighter sounding overall (less bass emphasis) – and this gives the feeling of a slightly more balanced sound. The funny thing about going back and forth with these two is that it depends on which on you are used to. If you listen to the EM3 for a while and switch to the Monk it does sound overly warm. If you do the opposite, the EM3 sounds overly bright. Both sound pretty balanced when listening to them individually (after your ears adjust).
EM3 vs Monk Plus
I won't repeat the comparison on build, fit, accessories etc – as it is essentially the same as the original Monk. Monk Plus does have the translucent housing and is tuned differently to the original Monk. But in most other things they are essentially identical.
Sonically I prefer the Monk Plus with do-nut foams so that is what I sued in the comparison. Again the Monk Plus is warmer and fuller on the bass (particularly mid-bass) although it does lose a little to the better sub-bass extension of the EM3. Monk Plus is also more etched and vivid in the upper mid-range (even more so than the original Monk) and I find it can be a little peaky as times – something I don't find with either the Monk original of EM3. The Monk Plus is a little more V shaped where the EM3 is flatter. Both sound pretty good – and again it is a matter of acclimatising to their individual signatures.
Note On EM3 in comparison to VE range
If I was to choose on my own particular preferences – I'd actually probably lean toward EM3 > Monk Original > Monk Plus. Start moving up the chain though with the VE offerings (Asura & Zen) and the EM3 soon gets left behind (not really a fair comparison). What is interesting is that the EM3 with thin foams sounds very similar tonally to the VE Zen 2. It just doesn't have the Zen 2's resolution and depth of stage.
EM3 vs Apple Ear-pods
The Ear-pods from Apple have been my go to for phone calls for the last 2-3 years. In that time I've gone through a couple of pairs (cables eventually failed), but in the time I've had them and for the use they've had, they have been pretty good value. I've used them for music too – and IMO they are undeserving of the bad rap they get. I wear them with Earksinz and foams over the top, and they are comfortable, well balanced and pretty good for purpose. They have the advantage of having controls on cable which I do miss on the EM3. In terms of build quality I'd rate them about even – though I do hope that FiiO's long term cable quality is better than Apple's. In terms of sound the Ear-pods have decent bass response but it is a looser and boomier. The EM3 is smoother and more well balanced (the Ear-pods can get a bit strident and peaky comparatively). The EM3 represent far better value for me overall (cheaper and better sonically).
EM3 vs Included FiiO buds from the M3
This is an interesting one. Build quality is practically identical, and the only difference I can see is in the colour -and the fact that while the on cable button works, the microphone doesn't. Sonically (both with light foams from VE) they sound pretty much the same to me. The sense of balance seems the same anyway. If anything the EM3 might be very slightly smoother, and the M3 buds could be a shade brighter – but I'm not sure if that is fit or cover variation, or me imagining things. One thing is for sure – if you like the buds from the M3 – then the EM3 will add a working microphone. And this makes (for me) all the difference for day to day use with my iPhone 5S.
FiiO EM3 – SUMMARY
The EM3 at $10.00 represents extremely good value for money in my opinion. It appears to have a good quality build (only time will tell), is comfortable to wear, and fits me pretty well (with appropriate foam covers). Its a little short on accessory options compared to the VE range – but VE is probably an anomaly here and sets the bar higher than most other manufacturers for cover options. To get the most out of the EM3 I recommend also buying a VE expansion pack. It is worth it.
Sonically the EM3 has a slightly warm low end, and slightly bright upper mid-range, but funnily enough it is less V shaped than the VE Monks and for me (with VE thin foams) is really nicely balanced across the frequency range. The biggest compliment I can give its sonic signature is that it is actually pretty close to what I hear from the VE Zen 2. It just doesn't have the Zen's resolution or sound-stage width and depth.
For me the real strength of the EM3 (aside from value and sonic ability) is the inclusion of the on cable control and microphone. I've been on the hunt for a replacement for my Ear-pods and the EM3 fills that gap nicely (and cheaper to boot).
Ultimately personal preference is going to dictate what each individual will like, and choice of covers and anatomy will play a big part. For my preferences I'd rate the EM3 as being equal to both Monk and Monk Plus in ability – and I actually prefer it to both.
Like the Monk and Monk Plus, it is difficult to know how to score these. They are not perfect, so its hard to justify 5/5 – but then I look at the price, and ask myself again how I could give any other score for something which provides so much sonic ability for so little value. But to be fair, I'm going to give a 4.5 - simply because to get the best out of them I do need to go to alternate cover options, and also because with the shape – having covers slip off is not an infrequent occurrence.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Thanks to Sunny from FiiO for giving me the chance to hear these. I'm suitably impressed, and I've also been surprised how much I use and will continue to use these. You can make a couple of improvements on them though – and I'd be prepared to pay a little more if they were implemented.
Either add a rubberised section around the face so that covers will stay on, or maybe even a lip.
Look at including a few different foam cover types
Volume controls if you come out with a premium EM3 would make these almost perfectly
So are these just about my ultimate smart-phone ear-buds? Yes they go very, very close. The ultimate for me though would still be the VE Zen2 with on-cable microphone and controls. Until then though the EM3 is a worthy budget substitute.
Nice and comprehensive!
I agree to this:
"The irony here is that really speaking the graphs are going to be meaningless except as a very rough indicator. This is mainly because it is the combination of cover and your own physiology which work together to create a semi-seal. And this can dramatically affect the entire response curve."
Pros: Sound quality, power output, low impedance, easy to swap in and out, balanced option as well as single ended, better battery life than AM5
Cons: Still relatively low battery life compared to alternatives
For larger (1200 x 800) images, click any picture
INTRODUCTION
A lot of you will see the style and information with this review as being pretty similar to the one I did on the AM2 and AM5. And the reality is that a lot of the physical aspects are very much the same. So for similarity I can't do much about it. I can assure you however that I performed the same testing, and the same comparisons I've done previously. I reviewed FiiO's TOTL Android based touch screen DAP – the X7 – in early November 2015, the AM2 module in February 2016, and the AM5 module in May 2016.
Please note that the X7 (with subsequent firmware updates) is now a much more complete DAP than when first released. I can now go artist, album, track, the DAC works beautifully, the blue light can be turned off, the battery indicator seems to be a lot more accurate, and with the release of most of the amplifier modules, there is plenty of choice for no matter what headphones you are driving.
ABOUT FIIO By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary. FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. They debuted their first DAP (the X3) in 2013, and despite some early hiccups with developing the UI, have worked with their customer base to continually develop the firmware for a better user experience. The X3 was followed by the X5, X1, X3 2nd Gen (X3ii), X5 2nd Gen (X5ii), M3 and X7. They also have a full range of amplifiers, DAC/amps, cables and are even starting to develop earphones.
FiiO’s products have followed a very simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.
DISCLAIMER The X7 and add on AM3 module were provided to me gratis as a review samples. I have made it clear to FiiO in the past that I did regard any product they sent me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. I have continued to use X7 and its modules for follow up reviews, and I recently inquired if I could purchase the devices from FiiO. They have insisted I keep the X7 + modules for my own use. So I acknowledge now that the X7 I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I thank FiiO for their generosity.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile). I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area. I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
REGARDING THE X7 This review is essentially about the AM3 balanced amp module released by FiiO for the X7. For a detailed look at the features of the X7, and a quick run-down on the AM1 (default) IEM module, I would recommend you read my X7 review or indeed any of the 30 something reviews on the X7 currently listed.
This is a purely subjective review of the AM3 balanced amplifier module – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own views.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
Front of the retail box
Rear of the retail box
The AM3 arrived in a small black retail box measuring approximately 90 x 120 x 25mm. On the front of the sleeve is a picture of the bottom half of the X7 with AM3 module attached and some text telling you that this is the AM3 amplifier module. On the rear of the box are QR codes which will take you to FiiO’s website or Facebook page.
Removing the outer packaging reveals a plain tin box with a nice powder coated finish. Removing the lid reveals a black cardboard envelope, and under this is a foam cut-out with the AM3 module nestled safely inside.
The powder coated tin
Accessory envelope
Inside the envelope is a warranty booklet in multiple languages, a full set of stickers (which match the ones from the X7) and 2 replacement screws. The stickers are a nice touch and show FiiO are thinking about their customers. If you’ve brought and applied stickers to your X7 already, the last thing you’d want is a new amp module with no adornments. Although I don’t use them, I can appreciate the foresight.
Stickers and documentation
AM3 safely nestled in its foam enclosure
As far as the AM3 goes, the other nice thing to note once again is the rubber dust cover/protector over the connection pins. So far everything is a mirror of the AM2 and AM5 modules, and this includes the lack of specifications on the packaging. The good thing is that FiiO have already listed the specs for the AM3 in the X7 section on their website. One last thing before we conclude this section – the case is actually large enough to store 3 modules. So my suggestion for FiiO would be to modify at least one of their releases to give that option. If not, then you can modify yourselves (see below).
Nice touch - internal rubber sheath
My modified container for all modules
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The table below lists most of the relevant specifications. I have (as a comparison) also listed specifications from the default AM1 and also the AM2 and AM5 modules.
AM1 Module
AM2 Module
AM3 Module (SE)
AM3 Module (Bal)
AM5 Module
Dimensions
~ 64 x 25 x 16mm
~ 64 x 25 x 16mm
~ 64 x 25 x 16mm
~ 64 x 25 x 16mm
~ 64 x 25 x 16mm
Weight
29g
32g
27g
27g
32g
Voltage amplification
OPA1612
Muses02
OPA1622
OPA1622
Muses02
Current Drive
AD8397
Buf634
OPA1622
OPA1622
TPA6120 A2
S/N (H/O)
≥115 dB (A-Weight)
≥118 dB (A-Weight)
≥115 dB (A-Weight)
≥115 dB (A-Weight)
≥120 dB (A-Weight)
THD+N (H/O)
<0.0008% (32Ω/1 kHz)
<0.001% (32Ω/1 kHz)
<0.001% (32Ω/1 kHz)
<0.0008% (32Ω/1 kHz)
<0.001% (32Ω/1 kHz)
Output into 16 ohms
>200 mW (16Ω/1 kHz)
>350 mW (16Ω/1 kHz)
>250 mW (16Ω/1 kHz)
>420 mW (16Ω/1 kHz)
>800 mW (16Ω/1 kHz)
Output into 32 ohms
>100 mW (32Ω/1 kHz)
>300 mW (32Ω/1 kHz)
>190 mW (32Ω/1 kHz)
>540 mW (32Ω/1 kHz)
>500 mW (32Ω/1 kHz)
Output into 300 ohms
>10 mW (300Ω/1 kHz)
>30 mW (300Ω/1 kHz)
>25 mW (300Ω/1 kHz)
>70 mW (300Ω/1 kHz)
>55 mW (300Ω/1 kHz)
H/O impedance
<0.2 Ω (32Ω)
<0.5 Ω (32Ω)
<0.3 Ω (32Ω)
<0.3 Ω (32Ω)
<0.5 Ω (32Ω)
Peak output voltage
>5.2 Vp-p
>8.8 Vp-p
>7 Vp-p
>11 Vp-p
>11 Vp-p
Peak output current
>250 mA
>250 mA
>80 mA
>160 mA
>250 mA
Channel Separation
>73 dB (32Ω/1 kHz)
>72 dB (32Ω/1 kHz)
>72 dB (32Ω/1 kHz)
>110 dB (32Ω/1 kHz)
>72 dB (32Ω/1 kHz)
Play time
9 hours+
8 hours+
6 hours+
6 hours+
6 hours+
BUILD / DESIGN The AM3 has the same dimensions as the AM1, AM2, and AM5. The main differences are internal, and of course also the addition of the balanced 2.5mm port. The AM3 follows the same look of the AM2 and AM5 with a darker shade of the powdered titanium appearance. Otherwise they all look and feel identical. The AM2, AM3 and AM5 colouring appears to be the same. There is white text on the back of each designating the model number.
Left = 3.5mm SE, middle = USB, right = 2.5 mm TRRS balanced
Internal view
I think one of the best things FiiO has done with the AM3 module is to include both single ended and balanced ports in the one module. On the left is a 3.5mm single ended port, and on the right a standard 2.5mm balanced port (TRRS).
Side view
Underside of the module
Replacing the modules is extremely easy – just a matter of using the small hex screwdriver included with the X7 – undoing two screws, sliding one module out, and sliding the new module in. The fit on the AM3 is perfectly flush, and the only thing very apparent with the AM3 fitted is the change in colour (compared to X7). This of course disappears when used with a cover for the X7 (if owned).
Attaching/detaching the modules
With cover fitted, there are no visible colour differences
DESIGN – INTERNALS Although you can’t see them, it is probably a good idea to mention the internal electronics (also see the table above). The AM3 uses a brand new amplifier chip from Texas Instruments – the OPA1622 – which has been designed exclusively for audio products. It is the successor to the OPA1612, and boasts some pretty impressively low distortion figures. The AM3 utilises a pair of OPA1622 for the single ended output, and 4 of them in the balanced output. FiiO's website quotes “an ultra low THD+N of -119.2 dB (0.000018%) while driving a 32 ohm load at 10-mW output power – 12 times better than the most similar competitive product”. In both balanced and single ended modes, one OPA1622 is used for voltage amplification, and the second as a current buffer.
Image courtesy of FiiO
Everything is combined on a single circuit board (unlike the AM5's dual boards), and there is a protection cover sandwiched between the board and housing to protect the amplifier chips and other components.
Whilst the AM5 has most powerful output of the X7's amplifier modules into 16 ohms (AM5 = 800 mW vs AM3 = 420 mW), the AM3 actually outperforms it in balanced mode at higher impedances delivering an impressive 540mw into 32 ohms (vs AM5 500 mW) and 70 mW into 300 ohms (vs AM5 55 mW). Sadly, I have no balanced cable for my HD600 – but you can bet that will shortly be on my list of things to buy.
POWER OUTPUT – REAL WORLD So the specs are listed above, bit what does that mean in the real world? This time (because I didn't have a balanced cable), I couldn't test my HD600, but I did have a pair of single-ended and balanced MMCX terminated ALO Audio Tinsel cables, and the perfect IEM in the form of the MEE Pinnacle P1 (50 ohms impedance, 96 dB sensitivity). I also had the newly arrived Fidue Sirius and the bonus of having it balanced plus having an adaptor to quickly convert to single ended.
The first test was to measure the P1 in balanced mode, switch to the single-ended cable and remeasure. I then went back to the balanced cable, and checked again using Fidue's adaptor. Everything matched perfectly – so from that point on I simply left everything in balanced, and simply used the adaptor when comparing with single ended. Because I had everything here – I then used all 4 modules and measured the C-rated decibel output of a 1 kHz test tone with the P1 as load. Unfortunately – because the load was pretty easy to drive, you won't see the same differences in volume, and for now I don't have the right adaptors to drive a more powerful mode to showcase the differences. When I manage to get the correct cable for my HD600 – I'll come back and redo this.
But for now:
In each case the X7 was in low gain mode, no EQ, using a 1 kHz test tone, constant 40/120 volume setting.
AM1 (SE) = 69.9 dB AM2 (SE) = 75.3 dB AM5 (SE) = 75.6 dB AM3 (SE) = 73.3 dB AM3 (bal) = 77.6 dB
What it does show is that even at a relatively benign 50 ohm load, as far as power output goes, the AM3 in balanced mode will outperform all the other amps into higher impedances.
BATTERY LIFE Although FiiO publishes their own real world tests with their modules, I also like to conduct my own. I noticed FiiO used relatively easy to drive IEMs and earbuds – their own M3 for the single ended test and the SE846 for the balanced test. Both achieved “+6 hours” at 58/120 and 50/120 respectively.
For my test I turned again to the MEE P1 which with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance really needs a little more power than most IEMs. I stayed with the 40/120 power on the X7 – because with the P1 in balanced mode the average track was hitting the 65-70 dB mark which is pretty normal listening for me. I then shuffled my entire library, and started playing – turned the screen off (after disengaging both wifi and bluetooth). I was using FiiO's pure music mode.
In balanced, the X7 managed to last 7 hours and 5 minutes – which I thought was a pretty good effort. I'd imagine that once I get the HD600 balanced cable – I should be able to run them comfortably at around 60/120 volume, so even with the increased volume I should have no problems running 6+ hours.
I repeated the test in single ended at the same volume, and the running time was almost identical – this time clocking up 7 hours and 9 minutes.
Of course your results are going to vary depending on the volume you use, the load you're driving, the amount of screen time you have on, and the apps you have running.
SONICS (subjective) So here we are again, after covering the specs, build, power and effect on battery life. I'll repeat what I said last time - my ears are probably not as sensitive as many of you, I volume match very closely, and I’m subject to the same amounts of potential placebo as all humans. The swapping for the comparisons were as quick as I could make them to preserve auditory memory (same procedure as before – screws undone – swap units, adjust volumes to the pre-set levels, and listen). I varied between rapid swapping (portions of a track about 10-15 seconds) and longer listening periods (a full track at a time).
I used a mix of my usual test tracks - http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks and concentrated mainly on tracks exposing detail, dynamic contrast, sound-stage, bass quantity and vocal quality. I'm just going to summarise here – rather than go through section by section – because a lot of the time the results were so close that in the end I was guessing.
Remember this is pretty subjective!
AM3 SE vs balanced I'll call this one early. To me they sound the same. I spent hours trying to track down any differences, and either my ears aren't sensitive enough, or there simply aren't any. Stage, imaging, and immersion had no difference – and that's probably where I expected to hear something (crosstalk). As far as tonality goes – I can't discern any difference at. A couple of times I've thought I had it nailed, only to discover I'd bumped the volume button, and when repeating the differences disappeared. The big difference for me is in power output (volume).
AM3 vs AM5 Again – with the P1, these two amp are so close they are almost identical. Staging, imaging and immersion have no real discernible difference, and there is no change in detailing. What I am getting is that the AM3 sounds ever so slightly more vivid (more present), with the AM5 being very slightly flatter. I really wish I could try this with the HD600 – as I think I would get a better sense of where the truth is. With the P1 – I'm favouring the AM3. I hate the term musical because it does a poor job of explaining anything – but that's what I'm reverting to because this module seems to be drawing a little more out of the music I listen to. One thing I will say – the changes are small, and again both modules sound very good indeed.
AM3 vs AM2 Similar to the comparison with the AM5 – except more noticeable. The AM2 is a little warmer, a little flatter, and a little relaxed in its presentation. The AM3 in comparison is cleaner, clearer, more vibrant, and to me more dynamic.
AM3 vs AM1 This is an interesting one because in terms of overall tonality the AM3 to me is a lot closer to the AM1. It has that same clean, and clear presentation. The difference is in the overall dynamics with the AM3 – it has more life, is more vivid, and there is a greater feel of dynamic contrast. Staging is once again very similar – but this time on pure imaging I'd give it to the AM3 by a small margin.
GRAPHS This was a lot harder to measure – as I couldn't use loopback (I didn't have a balanced to single ended converter). What I could do though was connect the MEE P1 to Veritas, use the X7 as DAC, and measure the P1 with ARTA using each amplifier module.
What you'll notice here is the same curve with no real deviations. Please ignore the section after 5 kHz as this is a combination of the P1's frequency response, the X7's DAC (under Windows) and Veritas not measuring well below 4-5 kHz (it always measures low).
What the measurements did show though was that the P1 is pretty linear under different amplification, and also that my readings earlier with the SPL meter are being accurately represented with Veritas and ARTA. I have no doubts that I'm not really showing what both the AM3 (balanced) and AM5 are capable of with a tougher load to drive – but until I get a balanced cable for my
In the graph – the two blue lines are the AM3 (darker is SE, lighter is balanced). Red and yellow is the AM5 and AM2 respectively, and the AM1 sits at the bottom (orange). Again the only reason the AM5 and AM3 balanced aren't showing more volume difference than the others is because they need a tougher load to showcase their strengths.
X7 AM3 & FIDUE SIRIUS
Sirius balanced
Sirius single ended with adaptor
I mentioned earlier that the Sirius comes balanced by default, and also with the adaptor I've been using for my quick switching for the comparisons. I'd be remiss if I left without mentioning the combo. The Sirius is quite vocal or mid-range centric as far as IEMs go, but it also has a brilliantly clean and clear and nicely balanced presentation. Couple that with clean, dynamic X7 plus AM3, and you have a combination that lovers of detail and clarity (without excessive brightness) are going to love. One of my favourite combos, and even rivals my U6 at the moment.
AM3 SUMMARY / FINAL THOUGHTS
I'll keep this short, as I’ve pretty much already summarised everything – but once again to put it in a couple of sentences …..
The AM2 module (like the AM1, AM2 and AM5 modules) has a great build, is easy to fit, and measures as well as it sounds (check FiiO's specs). It will cost you some battery life from the original AM1, but in balanced mode it should have no issues driving headphones like my HD600.
Tonally the AM3 is closer to the AM1 than the slightly warmer AM2 and AM5 modules, but to me has a step-up in dynamic presentation, and is cleaner and clearer while avoiding being clinical.
I've managed to acquire 2 different balanced cables with MMCX connectors, and one with a dual pin configuration (for my U6), and I'm finding I just leave the AM3 in place all the time now. When I'm not using the X7 + AM3 (balanced), I'm switching to the L&P L3 (again balanced).
At an approximate release price of USD 99.00, if you own the X7 and have balanced headphones already, it is a no-brainer.
FINAL THANKS Once again thanks to Sunny at FiiO for giving me a chance to try the AM3.
I don't hear the AM1 as having overpowering treble though - which probably means you are very treble sensitive. So if you don't need a balanced output, I'd suggest you stick with AM2 or AM5. The Muses chipset is a little warmer and will suit your preferences.
Cons: Tuning (awful), nozzle width, cable (poorly built), value
For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
Firstly I want to thank a local NZ Head-Fier (AudioDHD) for allowing me to spend some time with his QT5. Scott I owe you.
Its been my practise not to review any IEMs I regard as truly awful – as usually any hype they get will die down as more people review them and the inconsistencies or issues become noticed. I'll usually alert the manufacturer, give them feedback, and return the goods. It happens rarely. This review in an exception.
They would never have come on my radar if I wasn't involved in currently reviewing the new Fidue Sirius 5 driver hybrid. Long story short – someone critiqued the value of the Sirius (they hadn't heard them – go figure), and suggested that there were other 5 driver hybrids which were much better value. He quoted the ZhiYin QT5 as an example. So I popped along to the thread, read some of the praise and noticed a local (AudioDHD) who had a pair. A couple of PMs later – and we arranged to swap IEMs for a week – he got my 64Audio Adel U6 – I got the QT5.
So I've had these for 5 days now – and my opinion won't change. They are possibly the worst tuned IEMs I have heard for quite some time. Normally I wouldn't write this up – but the only reviews so far (both on Head-Fi and another review site) are very positive – and to be honest I wouldn't want someone buying these in the hope they are giant beaters. I just wanted to post a review that reflects how I truly hear them. Talking to a few people in the last week – and they have shared graphs (which confirm this pair are the normal tuning) and also told me that they are not happy with the sound either. What worries me with this is that more people aren't bringing this up.
This will be a pretty stark review – I'll show you what I've found, outline the shortcomings, and let you draw your own conclusions. I hope that this might be helpful for some. I also want to make it clear that I'm not targeting anyone here – some people may genuinely like these IEMs. But I find it difficult to listen to them for any reasonable length of time.
ABOUT ZHIYIN I've tried to find something about the company, but consistently drawn blanks. I know they are based in Dongguan, China, and that their company name has a phrase as a suffix (Sounds Of Nature Zhiyin Audio Products Co). They appear to have 500-1000 employees (so they are a reasonable size), and their core business lists the manufacture of “loudspeaker, speaker, minute computer loudspeaker, lcd TV speaker, lcd MONITOR speaker, speaker, horn, mobile receiver, DV speaker, DC speaker, speaker, av loudspeaker”. So far I have been unable to find a website.
DISCLAIMER The QT5 used for this review is a loaner from Head-Fier AudioDHD – I borrowed it for the express purpose of finding out how it sounded. Apparently they retail for around $265 on AliExpress. I am not affiliated with Zhiyin and this is my completely honest view on this earphone (I am not embellishing this review in any way).
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
Over the last few days I’ve tried the QT5 paired with low impedance sources, and I've tried them with added amplification. The X3ii and E17K is my test rig and has enough power and perfectly flat response to give me a good read on most IEMs. The QT5 is no exception, and I don't think I've missed any opportunity to fairly and ethically give them similar chances as my other reviews.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES Scott sent these down with just the case and some tips. The case is leather, and really one of the best things about these IEMs. It's pretty good quality, has a belt loop and although it won't provide hard shell protection, for day to day use it seems pretty good. Apart from that, Scott sent me the following tips.
[size=inherit][/size]
Case and accessories
Tips and ear stabilisers
The case is one of the best attributes of the QT5 package
3 pairs red and clear S/M/L silicone tips
3 pairs red and clear silicone tips which must be from another set – because I don't think they'll fit
3 pairs black S/M/L silicone tips (one medium was missing)
4 pairs clear silicone tips
A packet of ear guides
[size=inherit][/size]
Belt clip
Tip selection
QT5 and cable
The first thing I noted about the tips is that the bore is huge. These tips will not work with other earphones and vice versa.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I’ve listed below the known specifications for the QT5.
Type
Five driver hybrid in ear monitor
Driver type
1 x 10 mm DD and 4 x BA
Current Retail
$261 (Ali Express)
Freq Range
10 Hz – 40 kHz (really??)
Impedance (earphone)
8 ohm
Sensitivity
118 dB
Jack
3.5mm gold plated Oyaide mini-plug
Cable
1.2m (+/- 5cm), removable (MMCX)
Cable material
8 core silver plated copper
Weight
60g
IEM Shell
Stainless steel
Body shape / fit
Cartridge (can be worn up or down)
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the near future.
I've also shown a second response from another set, and I've had confirmed that this response is consistent with at least 2 others – so I can only assume this is the default tuning.
What I’m hearing (subjective) – noted before I ever had these on the measurement bench.
Reasonable sub-bass, elevated mid-bass, and extremely elevated lower mid-range and upper mid-bass.
A massive hole in the presence area – vocal overtones are very distant leaving fundamentals with practically no harmonics. This leaves a very dissonant and confused overall signature.
Vocals sound hollow and very unnatural.
Upper mids are completely overshadowed by the huge hump in lower mids. Female vocalists sound muffled and flat.
Lower treble is subdued, and lacking any real detail
Soundstage is pretty narrow, and imaging suffers simply through the lack of harmonics in the presence area.
Overall the default sound is boomy with hollow and sucked out mid-range, no clarity and pretty lifeless. Cymbals have no real decay. It is one of the most unnaturally tuned IEMs I have ever heard.
As you can see from the graph the drivers are matched very closely so I can't see this being failed drivers.
BUILD & DESIGN The QT5 utilises a stainless steel cartridge type shell. At first glance it is a very nice two piece construction, and although there are some edges, there is nothing noticeable which would cause discomfort (apart from the nozzle – but we'll discuss that shortly). The QT5 is 21 mm long from tip to base, and has a circumference at it's widest point of 13mm. The main body has a slightly domed rear with a single central vent or port. As you move forward to the nozzle, the QT5 tapers down. The nozzle itself is 7mm in length, has no lip, but is an incredible 7.5mm in diameter – and it is this diameter for the entire length of the nozzle. The nozzle opening is finished with mesh to protect the internals.
[size=inherit][/size]
Rear of the shell and driver vents
Well built stainless shells - but massive nozzles
Connectors, another view of those nozzles & ring for R indicator
The cable connects with a standard MMCX connector, and other cables like the Shure standard cables or MEE's P1 cable have no problems connecting. Strangely there are no L/R markings on the nozzle, and the only way of telling left from right is to reply on a rubber ring attached to one of the earpieces.
The cable is an 8 core (2 sets of twisted pairs each side, joining to form 4 twisted pairs in a curiously loose litz type braid below the y-split. The cable material is single core silver plated copper. At the top is 95mm of heatshrink tubing used to create ear guides. This works pretty well – but they aren't exactly formable – if you straighten them, they will return to their original shape. There is no cinch, although you'll see from the photos that Scott has added a Sony rubber cinch (I didn't realise until afterwards that it wasn't part of the intended cable). The y-split is a piece of clear tubing / heatshrink. The cable is approximately 1.2m in length and terminates with an Oyaide 3.5mm gold plated straight mini-jack. This jack is iPhone case friendly – but one thing I've noticed already is that a lot of the “gold plate” is already wearing off – which considering the age of the IEMs is not reassuring.
[size=inherit][/size]
The silver plated copper cable
Connectors and ear guides
Y-split and Scott's Sony cinch
OK – those are the basics – so lets get to some “plain speak” about a couple of design errors. We'll cover the cable first. It's discoloured already (not sure if this is through use or if it came like this). Secondly it is a very untidy braid – honestly my 12yo daughter braids much tidier than this. It just looks very unprofessional – loose, raggedy, like a piece of unkempt string you would use to tie a parcel. I'm really not sure why they didn't go with a simply twisted pair into a twisted quad – tidier, easier to handle (this is too bulky), and looking far more professional. I've attached photos of a simple copper braided cable and also the MEE P1 cable so you can see the difference.
[size=inherit][/size]
Oijyade jack
Poor braiding on cable
QT5 cable left, and MEE P1 cable right
Second design fault is the massive nozzle. Firstly – anyone with narrow canals is going to have massive problems with fit and overall comfort. I asked my wife and teenage children to try these – none could get a seal and the complaint from all three was that the nozzles were too wide. This then leads to another issue in that I cannot use any other tips with these – it is simply impossible to get them on. I prefer foam tips. I have no options. I really can't see why anyone in their right mind would choose to use a nozzle this wide – it isn't just questionable – it's lunacy. And I'm really surprised reviewers have not made a bigger deal out of this.
[size=inherit][/size]
QT5 cable and a braided copper cable
Comparison of nozzle sizes
QT5 nozzle is massive
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION Initial fit for me is pretty good, and I do have reasonably large ears and canals. Normally I use large tips. Spending any longer than an hour with them though, and they start to become “obtrusive” - it's just the width of the nozzles I think. I could probably get used to them over time. The point is, I shouldn't have to though.
The included tips give enough options to get a fairly good seal, and the clear ones seem to give me a brilliant seal. What I miss though is that I can't use any of my own tips. Nothing fits, and that is why the choice of this nozzle size is such a poor one. What happens when you lose or run out of tips? Or if the tips you have just aren't suitable? And like I mentioned earlier, if you have smaller canals – forget it – these are very unlikely to fit.
QT5 - no way my foam tips will fit
Qt5 tips top vs popular Ostry, Spiral Dot and foam tips (none will fit)
Isolation – despite having a reasonable seal, isolation is below average for a vented dynamic. I can hear my wife in the background talking to the kids (and this is with music playing at my preferred 65-70 dB level. I would have like to try any foam tip to see if I could get a better seal ……. but oh yes, no other tips will fit. #Frustrated.
SOUND QUALITY This section is going to be briefer than my normal – mainly because there is very little more to say. I'll do it mainly with bullet points. I wasn't going to spend a lot of time, but true to form I can't seem to reconcile with trying to do anything half-way. So here are some reasonably brief thoughts on the QT5 using my standard test tracks.
The following is what I hear from the ZhiYin QT5. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes may be different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). It could also be that there is some huge variation in the tuning of some of the QT5's out in the wild. I can only hope this is true – because I cannot imagine any competent engineer aiming for this sort of signature.
The testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X7 (AM3 module) and included white silicone tips. I used the ALO Audio balanced Tinsel cable. For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7 with the AM3 balanced was 20-25/120 on low gain which was giving me an SPL range of around 65-75 dB (C weighted measurements from my SPL meter).
Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and most can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Initial Thoughts I've already covered this earlier – so lets skip straight to the meat. In a single sentence though, the QT sound very incoherent with a congested mid-range, no harmonics or overtones, and sort of a hollow or sucked out flat sounding mid-range. Treble has no life, and cymbals have very little shimmer or decay.
Bass actually sounds reasonably balanced, with slight elevation of the bass guitar.
Vocals are there but distant / weird – sucked out with no timbre or tonality.
Lead guitar is there but has no structure or edge.
Detail is smeared – and all the little clicks which are in Sultans on a normal pair of earphones are gone. Simply not there.
Overall – hollow, sounds like the whole song is being played in a tube. It is flat and lifeless.
Sound-stage & Imaging + Sibilance Test Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain, Flower Duet (Lakme)
Imaging is OK, but not crisp or clear – just sort of fuzzy, but at least consistent.
There is no real sense of depth or width – these have a very narrow stage – very much inside my head (even with the binaural track Tundra)
With Dante's Prayer, piano was OK, but the cello lacked life and tonality. Loreena's vocals are muffled and barely intelligible. This is horrible – I'm skipping to the applause section to check immersion.
A sense of the crowd being left and right – but the applause is again muffled and sounds as though I have a heavy blanket over my head.
Live recording of Lakme's Flower Duet (Netrebko and Garanca) started OK (maybe I am slowly getting used to this weird tonality) – until the first couple of notes were sung. Distant, no air, flat – and this is from two of the best Sopranos around. Awful.
There is a small bit of sibilance present in “Let It Rain” - I know it exists in the recording. But the whole track again is lifeless, and this is usually a bright , clean enveloping track.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Muddy Waters is pretty weird – its kind of gloomy but Mark's voice has no texture and there isn't a lot of impact
Bass has reasonable speed – but no resolution. It's there but sort of cloudy.
I can't tell if there is bleed into the mid-range, because half the mid-range is missing
Decent impact for Lorde's “Royals” and enough sub-bass to produce rumble, but Ellas vocals sound like she's singing through a wall. Hollow, dissonant and unpleasant.
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake me Up, Ship To Wreck, Mile On the Moon
Probably the worst section. Agnes Obel in particular sounded horrible with the QT5. Her vocals are there, but have no air or sweetness. It's like someone put a shell of her there to sing, and then took out most of what makes her voice stunning to listen to.
This was repeated with Hannah (London Grammar) and if there is a headphone that can make her voice unpleasant you know to avoid it.
Perhaps the best track was Gabriella Cilmi's “Safer” - and it wasn't that it was good – just that it was less bad than the others. Again it sounds tonally flat, lacking detail or air.
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Immortality (Seether), Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Slightly better than with female vocals but still sounds flat and muffled with no real resolution
Nothing I tried sounded good, or even “OK” - it was continually like a veil was over the recording. And I'm sorry – but if someone is saying these are more resolving than the FLC8S then they need their ears checked. My Apple Earpods are miles better than these.
Pearl Jam is always my go to. Vedders voice was at least a little clearer, but normally this track is alive with cymbals and hi-hats, and the decay on the cymbals is one part of the track that really makes it pop. There is virtually nothing there with the QT5 – it is very distant, cloudy, veiled.
At this point I'm going to stop – no use beating a dead horse. Sonically these are quite simply a mess. Using their default tuning there isn't a single positive thing I can say about them.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS As I alluded to earlier, the QT5 is very easily driven out of a smartphone or DAP. Because of the low impedance, I avoided the iPhone, but the sound was consistent on all of the other DAPs I tested. I also volume matched and compared X3ii vs X3ii + E17K, and there was no discernible audible difference in dynamic presentation (what dynamics?). Based on the specs alone (8 ohm and 118dB SPL), straight out of the headphone-out of most sources should be more than enough. These neither need nor benefit from amping
I already knew I wouldn't hear any hiss (my hearing is not sensitive enough), but because of the size of the nozzles I was unable to have my daughter or wife help me check.
RESPONSE TO EQ? This was an easy one for me because I already had the frequency plot, so knew exactly what I'd need to do. Rather than explain it, I'll show you how drastic I needed to be using the X7. To really correct it, you'd need a decent multi band parametric equaliser. Once I'd done this, it still wasn't perfect, but at least there was a lot of life back again – and some decent tonality. I went back and tried some of the tracks like Aventine and finally the QT sounded like a decent earphone. The fact that I had to make such drastic changes simply shows how badly they are tuned in the first place. But there is some potential here.
COMPARISONS Sorry – wasted enough time on these already so I'll simply leave you with some graphs. The first is of the very good MEE P1. Notice the difference in bass presentation, and in particular the difference in the mid-range. And if you look at most good earphones on the market today, nowhere will you see the huge hump the QT5 has in the 400-500 Hz area, nor the suck-out in the 1-2 kHz area. There is a reason for this – and it should be self evident.
[size=inherit][/size]
QT5 vs MEE P1
QT5 vs Fidue Sirius (vent open)
QT5 vs Fidue Sirius (vent closed)
The next graphs I'd like to show are of the Fidue Sirius. One is without the bass port blocked, the second with it covered. The port is on the internal face of the earphone, and I suspect the true signature is somewhere in between when worn. Once again you'll notice the stark contrast in frequency response curves, and probably even notice a little similarity to the MEE P1 graph. I should probably have avoided matching at 1 kHz because in reality the Sirius graph would be more accurate matching (crossing lines) at about 1.5 kHz. So why am I showing you this – simply because it was a comment about the Sirius that made me go looking for the QT5. As you can see – there is simply no comparison. One of these two earphones is pretty much garbage, the other is one of the best earphones I've heard this year.
ZHIYIN QT5– SUMMARY
This is without doubt one of the worst tuned earphones I have heard or reviewed. It has a nicely built stainless steel body, and a really good leather pouch – but that is where things stop for me. The cable is very poorly put together, there are incredibly bad design choices with the nozzle sizing, and the actual tuning itself is just incredibly bad. If you have the time or inclination though, with some careful EQ, these can sound pretty good.
What saddens me most about the QT5 is that we have reviews out there stating these are good IEMs. I know preference plays a big part – but even if the sonics were better on a few models (consistency of the freq charts I've seen would indicate otherwise), the cable quality, and nozzle size alone would indicate these are not 5 star perfect. Couple that with the admissions that you need to EQ them to improve them – and the stellar reviews these are getting are quite simply misleading. I hope that a few will now go back – really listen again and compare these to models which are recognised as very good at their price points. I hope they will then objectively regrade and re-evaluate their reviews.
Sadly I cannot recommend these even slightly, and definitely not at their asking price. If you're prepared to really tweak them (EQ) you can get decent sound out of them – but TBH you can do a lot better for a lot less money. 1.5 stars for me – 1 for the shell quality and the leather case. Half for the ability to get them sounding decent with some EQ.
Thanks again to Scott for the loaner. Scott – I'm going to send you my personally owned Alclair Curve when I send back the QT5. They are yours to keep. Its the least I can do for you putting up with these!
Thank you for this review @Brooko as I fell for the QT5 hype and almost purchased it but glad i didn't. So relieved I put that money towards the Trinity Phantom M4 and M6. Can't wait for them to arrive!
For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
Firstly I want to shout out to Mark (Head-Fier d marc0) for working with Ken Ball from ALO/Campfire for making this tour possible, and also for inviting me. Secondly I’d like to thank Ken once again for letting the tour go ahead.
So far I've managed to review the Campfire Orion (which I thought was a spectacular IEM), and I've also heard prototypes of the Andromeda (hopefully I'll get the chance to hear the final version at some stage). I chose not to review the Jupiter because I did not think I could give an objective evaluation (it would be fair to say that the Jupiter and I did not get along at all).
Which leads me to the final IEM in the Campfire Audio tour – the ceramic encased Lyra. Could this wow me like the Orion did?
ABOUT CAMPFIRE AUDIO Before Mark approached me I’d never heard of them. Then he mentioned the name Ken Ball and things clicked into place. Ken of course is the CEO and founder of ALO Audio (2006) and ALO is very well known for creating high quality audio components – including cables, amplifiers and all manner of other audio equipment. Ken founded Campfire Audio last year – with a vision of creating extremely high quality earphones with excellence in design, materials and of course sound quality.
DISCLAIMER The Campfire Audio Lyra was provided to me for review as part of a tour. I get to use it for 7-10 days then it goes to the next person. The only obligation I have as part of the tour is that I need to write about it. I am not affiliated to Campfire or ALO Audio in any way, and this is my subjective opinion of the Lyra.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
Over the last week I’ve used the Lyra paired with most of the sources I have at my disposal – from my iPhone to the L5Pro and X7. But for the review I’ve used mainly my X3ii + E17K. In the time I’ve been using the Lyra, I haven’t noticed any sonic change. And although I used the Lyra coupled with several different amplifiers, they are easily driven, and will pair nicely with most sources straight from the headphone out.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
Distinctive Campfire Audio boxes
Opening the cover to reveal the carry case
The Lyras arrived in the distinctive Campfire 76 x 116 x 54 mm rainbow coloured thin cardboard retail hinged lid box. It once again has that sort of 70’s psychedelic vibe about the patterning on it – and is very distinctive. The top (lid) simply has the word Lyra and a short description, and the front face has a picture of the Lyras. Probably the one thing to immediately catch my eye was on the top cover “Beryllium PVD Dynamic Driver + Ceramic Housing”. This could be something pretty special.
Full accessory package
Inside the case
Opening the lid reveals the Campfire Audio case, and once again it really is a very sturdy case, but more “jacket or bag pocket-able” than trousers. It measures approx. 75 x 115 x 40 mm. The case is finished in tanned nu-back leather, is zipped on 3 sides, and when opened reveals a soft wool interior which will definitely protect and preserve your IEMs.
The campfire manual
Nice to see full specs included
Under the case is a hidden compartment which reveals the accessories. These include:
S/M/L silicone tips
S/M/L generic foam tips (some of these were missing from the demo pack)
S/M/L genuine Comply T400 tips
A cleaning brush / wax remover
A Campfire Audio logo clothing button / pin
Campfire’s fold-out user manual (incl care instructions and warranty info)
Included tips
The actual Lyra and Tinsel cable
You really don’t need any more than what is included, as the cinch on the cable negates the need for a shirt clip. At this price point, I'd normally expect a 3.5-6.3mm adaptor, but most people who're buying in this price range would normally have a few spares around – and Campfire do include their Tinsel silver plated cable which is pretty high value if purchased separately ($149).
Whilst a smaller carry case may have been nice – I can understand the use for the larger case – it is just easier to handle and pack the Lyras, and it is very premium and jacket pocket friendly.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I’ve listed below the main specifications for the Campfire Lyra.
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the near future.
Lyra on my rig - almost perfect channel matching & very good transitions
Lyra compared to Orion
What I’m hearing (subjective) – noted before I ever had these on the measurement bench.
Elevated mid and sub bass (warmer tonality) but not what I would call overdone.
Very clean and coherent mid-range which seems to have a slight rise in my favoured presence area (around 2 or 3 kHz). Female vocals sound very good and there is a nice transition from mids to upper mids
Reasonably well extended but very smooth lower treble which falls well short of excessive sibilance (for me) and remains detailed with sufficient air for clarity.
Overall I’d say that the Lyra has a warm and smooth frequency response, but it also has good overall balance. The bass on these is definitely north of neutral, but at the same time there is enough balance through the mid-range, and upper end detail boost in the lower treble to sound very coherent.
As you can see from the graph the drivers are matched almost perfectly (and some of the differences shown in my measurements are likely to be minor differences in seating each ear piece). They are practically identical. When Ken says his team hand-pick and match the drivers, it isn’t just “marketing speak”. Well done!
BUILD & DESIGN To me – the sign of a good earphone is often clean, simple lines, and a really solids build – but ergonomic and with comfort at the forefront. I wasn't overly keen on the initial Jupiter or Orion due to some sharp angle on the internal side. The Lyra on the other hand may be one of the best designed shell to come out of Campfire to date.
Smoothed internal faces for a comfortable fit - note angled nozzle
Top vent + you can just see the 3 piece nature of the shells
The Lyra uses a high mass, ultra high density ceramic (Zirconium Oxide Ceramic or ZrO2) shell. Ken says that he used this material because as an acoustic chamber it minimises any vibration, and allows an extended higher frequency and natural tonality. There is a lot that goes into the manufacturing of these shells as well. First steps involve processes to mix the ceramic material, granulate, injection mould and debind. This is followed by a sintering process (72 hours at 1400 deg C) to harden and shrink the ceramic. The end result is a gorgeous black shiny shell with an ergonomic design and well smoothed internals.
Very ergonomic shape
Better view of angled nozzles and connectors
The Lyra measures approximately 20mm in length, 14mm in height and has a depth of approx. 20mm (including the nozzle). The actual main body is around 7mm thick. The nozzle itself is angled slightly forward and slightly up when worn, extends approx. 12mm from the main body (domed housing area and nozzle), and has an external diameter of 6mm. The shape is very ergonomic, and the Lyra is designed to be used with the cable over ear. The IEM shell is 3 pieces in total – nozzle, shell and back plate, but the seams are very smooth. There are L/R marking on the inside of both ear pieces and the Campfire logo is also discretely engraved on the outer face. There is a small vent or port adjacent to the cable exit on each earpiece. The finish is a subtle carbon black gloss, and these really do look gorgeous. Another point to note is that the driver for the Lyra is actually a custom 8.5mm beryllium PVD transducer.
External face with Campfire logo - memory wire on Tinsel cable is good
Internal face with L / R indicators
At the top of the shell is a beryllium coated MMCX connector, and when used with the supplied silver plated copper ALO Tinsel cable, the connection is made with a very reassuring click. The cables do rotate in their sockets, but the connection itself seems to be very robust. Unfortunately this is one of those things that only time can be the judge of – but the craftsmanship and material used seem to indicate longevity (to me anyway).
MMCX connection system seems very stable
Y-split and cinch
As I mentioned, the cable is ALO’s “Tinsel” which is high purity sliver-plated copper wire encased in an FEP jacket. FEP is similar to Teflon, and some of the traits it has include resistance to chemicals, sweat, water, and oil. This means it should protect the wires from oxidation, and eliminate the “greening” effect. The male MMCX connector is again beryllium coated, fits very snugly, and has either a blue or red dot on the connector to indicate L/R. There is a 75mm length of memory wire for over-ear wear, and I’ve found this very malleable, but also holds its shape very well. The cable is approximately 1.4m long, and consists of two twisted pairs above the Y split which continue as a twisted quad right through to the jack. The Y split is small and light and houses an in-built cinch which works really well, but can be a little loose. The jack is 3.5mm, right angled, and has clear rubber housing. Strain relief is excellent. The jack will also fit my iPhone 5S with case in place, although YMMV as the diameter of the rubber base is around 6mm.
Jack - very good relief
Overall quality is excellent
The one thing I did find with the Tinsel cable is that when sitting down (quiet environment with the cable sitting above my clothes), it could be very slightly microphonic. It’s not terrible, but there was some noise. However, I’ve used it a few times walking and with cable management (inside clothes) and use of the cinch, there is practically no cable noise at all. It was actually very good. The other thing to note with the cable is that they are prone to tangling, but if you are like me, and tend to wind carefully, and use the included ties, you shouldn’t have too many issues. If you are the type to scrunch and slip into a pocket though – you are going to get frustrated.
So both aesthetically and physically I am highly impressed with the build and design, So how are they when worn?
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION Fit for me is fantastic – the shells are very ergonomic in shape, and this includes the angle of the nozzles and also the placement of the cable exits. The shells (when fitted) do not extend outside my outer ear, and I would have no issues lying down with the Lyra. The memory wire is also really well implemented here so that snugging the wires properly is easy. The fit is usually shallow with ergonomic shells, but with the rounded internal edges, I have no issues getting a pretty good seal by simply pushing the earpieces in a little better.
Comfort is brilliant – there are no hard edges which I encountered with the Orion or Jupiter, and I can use these comfortably for hours. As far as isolation goes, it will be tip dependent. For me, using large Comply T400 tips, or standard foams the isolation is extremely good for a dynamic driver.
[size=inherit][/size]
Most tips fit well including Spiral Dots and Spinfits
Also Ostry tuning tips and Sony Isolation
My favourites were simple generic foams
And speaking of tips – those who’ve read my reviews will know that I have one ear canal slightly different to the other one (my right is very slightly smaller) - so I tend to find that usually single silicon flanges don't fit overly well. This is often even more of an issue with shallow fitting IEMs. I tried the large included silicones and was surprised to find them very comfortable and capable of getting a good seal. So I ran through some of the other tips I normally try.
Sony Isolation tips gave instant seal and brilliant results – but I had to be careful about some vacuum issues with any change of pressure. I also fit and had great success with Ostry’s blue and black tuning tips, Spin-fits, and also Spiral Dots. The lip on the Lyra is fantastic for every tip I tried and I credit the reason for a lot of the success with the tips I tried to the angle of the nozzle. It isn’t just good – it is perfect.
So everything is close to perfect so far – no issues with build, comfort or other design features. How do they sound?
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the Campfire Audio Lyra. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X7 (AM3 module) and large generic foam tips. For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7 with the AM3 single ended was 35/120 on low gain which was giving me an SPL range of around 65-75 dB (C weighted measurements from my SPL meter). If I was using balanced from the AM3, 28-29/120 gave me the same volume level. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and most can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Initial Thoughts It took me a while to get used to the Lyra, but at no stage has it ever been a sense of bass overdone, but maybe just one of bass slightly enhanced. And the more I have listened to them, the more I have come to enjoy their understated smooth tonality, and also their overall sense of balance. They are simply a very easy to listen to earphone. I've sometimes tweaked their upper mid-range and lower treble a bit in the time I've had them – but more often I've just allowed my ears to get used to the default signature. And what they remind me of a little is the HD650. Just a really smooth and spacious listening experience, slightly on the lush side – but with enough upper end to maintain clarity.
The devices I’ve paired them with hasn’t mattered either. I’ve tried them with the X7, L3 (balanced), solo out of the X3ii or paired with the E17K, with Martin’s new hybrid portable tube amp, and even with just my iPhone. Each has a slightly different flavour, and with each the overall sound has been very good. On the slightly warm and smooth side yes, but never too dark or bassy.
Slightly elevated bass response gives a little more bass guitar than truly balanced, but doesn't hide or mask detail.
Very good cohesion in the mid-range, but appears very slightly distant compared to some of the more mid-forward earphones I've listened to lately. This is not necessarily a bad thing
Clean and clear in the presence area with very good detail especially around vocals and guitar.
Very good upper end detail (hi-hats/cymbals) with good decay – no signs of being over done. Just enough heat to balance things nicely.
No signs of lack of resolution – some who prefer brighter presentations may find these a little on the smooth side.
Sound-stage & Imaging + Sibilance Test Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain, Flower Duet (Lakme)
Very good directional cues, definitely outside the periphery of my head space – so very good feeling of width and also of depth.
Imaging is very clean and clear and very good separation of instruments without being clinical. No signs of smearing.
Dante's Prayer was brilliant with an amazing contrast between the cello, piano, and Loreena's vocals. Portrayal of both piano and cello was very realistic.
Excellent immersion (applause section of Dante's Prayer) with impression that crowd is around you (you are sitting right in it). Extremely good sense of depth as well.
Live recording of Lakme's Flower Duet (Netrebko and Garanca) had very good presentation of space and was really easy to listen to – no signs of sharpness.
Sibilance is present in “Let It Rain” - I know it exists in the recording. For me it is slightly more present than in other earphones – could be the 7 kHz peak. Not un-listenable though.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals, Electric Daisy Violin
Muddy Waters presentation is excellent – gloomy and dark the way it is supposed to be.
Very good mid-bass impact without being overdone. Mark's vocals have wonderful presentation of timbre, and texture.
Good speed and bass resolution – not too boomy, but there is slight decay present.
No real signs of bass bleed into the mid-range
Good sub-bass for rumble (“Royals”) but not over-done (extremely good balance actually). Ella's vocals are clean and clear and have quite good tonality.
Electric Daisy Violin shows really good clean impact, and while I personally would like a little more balance or forwardness in the mid-range, lovers of a more lush and warm presentation will love the Lyra.
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake me Up, Ship To Wreck, Mile On the Moon
Very good transition from lower-mids to upper-mids. Enough sweetness in the presence area to sound slightly euphonic.
Good contrast between vocals and lower pitch of instruments like cello
No signs of stridency with Aventine and Strong
Strong and punchy bass impact with music with highly dynamic content (Feist, FaTM) – and again the contrast between bass and vocals is excellent.
Wonderful with slower “jazzy” female vocals and especially with artists like Gabriella Cilmi, Norah Jones and Sarah Jarosz. Tonality I could listen to for hours. Again HD650 like.
Smoother than some of my favourite IEMs for female vocals (I usually like just a touch more emphasis in 2-3 kHz) but I really can't fault this tuning – it sounds very natural.
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Immortality (Seether), Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
This tuning is extremely good for male vocals – good presence and depth and not in the slightest bit thin or recessed.
Excellent bass presence and still enough contrast with lead guitar – although again smoother and warmer than I am used to.
Good portrayal of classic rock artists like 10CC and Jethro Tull. Mix of detail and tonality is good. This is one area I'd like to dial back the sub-bass just a notch.
Brilliant with acoustic tracks or slower rock. Alter Bridge's Broken Wings was pure joy to listen to – although again I'd just like to dial back the sub-bass a little. Both Hotel California and Keith Don't Go were smooth, clear and thoroughly enjoyable.
Pearl Jam was excellent – I really liked the overall texture and tonality – especially with Eddie's vocals. Cymbal decay was really good. Very easy to listen to.
Other Genres Tracks used: Money, Trains, Ruins, So What, Love Me like a Man, Lifts You Up, India / Mountain Time, Lose Yourself, Little Man, This Is What It Feels Like, Turning Tables, Speed of Sound, Is There a Ghost, Dawn To Flight, Vivaldi 4 Seasons 'Spring' (Allegro), Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto in D OP 35 1st Movement, Escape Artist, Moonlight Sonata (1)
With Alt Rock (Money, Trains) both tracks are just a little on the warm side for my liking – but they are still resolving very well. Good presentation of contrasting instruments on the whole.
Jazz – good detail and generally good tonality. I'd still prefer just a little more mid-range presence, or a little less bass presence. Presentation of cymbals is very good and decay is realistically portrayed. Krall's Love Me Like a Man was fantastic – the Lyra really does piano incredibly well.
Blues – very good. Beth Hart's “Lifts You Up” is from the Live at Paradiso recording which can often be a little to bright (it is recorded on the hot side) – on the Lyra it is perfect. Bonamassa on the other hand was smooth, velvety – but could have just used a little more edge on the guitar for me.
Hip-hop, Trip-Hop, Trance, Electronic – the Lyra shines here. Great bass impact, and enough heat in the lower treble to really balance things out. Probably my favourite single genre (along with Indie) when listening with the Lyra.
Pop – really good. Another example where the Lyra can really scale the heights. Managed to smooth some of the peakiness of Adele's Turning Tables (its the recording), and Coldplay's speed of sound was just an overall good blend of bass and mid-range. Nothing to complain about here.
Indie – another strength here. A lot of Indie can be again recorded a little on the trebly or bright side. The Lyra's natural lush tonality complements this well – taking the edge of anything with slightly peaky recording.
Classical – brilliant with piano and very good with stringed instruments generally (but especially with cello). Good sense of depth, imaging and separation with most orchestral pieces – and the only thing I found slightly lacking was just a little air with some recordings. Overall – very good.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS As I alluded to earlier, the Lyra is easily driven out of a smartphone or DAP, and on my iPhone 5S I’m generally sitting around 25-35%. Any higher and its getting a bit uncomfortably loud. I also volume matched and compared X3ii vs X3ii + E17K, and there was no discernible audible difference in dynamic presentation – so I think it is pretty safe to say that extra amping won’t be necessary. Based on the specs alone (17 ohm and 110dB SPL), straight out of the headphone-out of most sources should be more than enough.
Of course you need to be aware of the relatively high sensitivity and low impedance of the Lyra, so ideally a source with under 2 ohms output impedance is desirable. I already knew I wouldn't hear any hiss (my hearing is not sensitive enough) so I seconded my daughter Emma and her incredibly sensitive 12 yo ears to try with the X3ii and E17K. She could hear very faint noise at 55/60 (no music playing) but at that level with actual music playing you'd be deaf anyway. So the Lyra seems to be pretty hiss free on low impedance sources.
RESPONSE TO EQ? This was an easy one for me because I already had the frequency plot, so knew exactly what I'd like. Using the E17Ks tone controls (paired with the X3ii) I dropped the bass -4 dB, leaving me a slight mid-bass hump with its apex slightly higher than the small bump in the upper mids. To be fair, some will find this tuning a little bass light. For me it is perfect. I would pay real money for this default tuning. It just allows the mids to shine a little more.
COMPARISONS This is a hard one due to the price of the Lyra – I wanted something in the same bracket, but I also didn't want to pitch it unfairly against multi-driver hybrids or pure multi-driver Bas. In the end I chose to just use two – the single dynamic Rhapsodio RTi1 (usually $800 – currently $500), and the single dynamic MEE P1 which although is only $200 I didn't think would be too far out of place against the Lyra.
As always, the IEMs were compared after volume matching (SPL meter and test tones), but the comparisons are completely subjective. For these tests I used the X3ii and E17K (no EQ) – simply because it is easier to volume match with this combo.
Lyra $749 vs Rhapsodio RTi1 $500 current ($800 standard RRP).
[size=inherit][/size]
Campfire Lyra and the Rhapsodio RTi1
Comparative frequency responses
Both are single dynamic drivers, and both are in an ergonomically shaped high quality shell. When I look at the actual fit and finish though the Lyra has the slight edge on overall finish quality. If find both to be exceptionally comfortable to wear. Cable quality is similar – although TBH I prefer the ergonomics of the RTi1 cable over the Lyra. This would change if Ken included the new litz cable (from Andromeda/Nova).
Comparatively, both have very similar levels of bass, both have very good transition from the lower to upper mids, and both have somewhat similar lower treble. The biggest difference occurs from about 2-5 kHz where comparatively the Rti1 has a lot more presence, and the Lyra is comparatively lower. This manifests itself with the Lyra being smoother and lusher, while the RTi1 is airier, brighter – but is also occasionally a little hazy. RTi1's presence for female vocals is also a little sweeter, but you could also argue that this is a little more coloured rather than neutral. As it is I can enjoy both presentations (they are both excellent), and I if could make a combination from the two of them I think that would be ideal – cutting some of the RTi1's peak at 5-6 kHz, but in turn adding a little more of a bump in Lyra's mid-range from 2-3 kHz.
Lyra $749 vs MEE P1 $199
Campfire Lyra and The MEE Pinnacle P1
Comparative frequency responses
Again we have a dynamic driver against another dynamic driver. Again we have two very ergonomic shapes, and two very well built shells. Overall the build quality (especially cable connections) goes to the Lyra – but the P1 is not too far behind, and on comfort they are both neck and neck. I prefer the P1's cable – this would change if Ken used the new litz. The Lyra is a lot easier to drive.
Again both have extremely similar levels of bass, a similar shallow dip/curve in the lower mids and a similar bump in the transitional 1-2 kHz area. And like the Rti1 – the main difference is in the upper mid-range with the P1 having more presence from 2-5 kHz where the Lyra is comparatively lower in this area. This manifests as both being slightly warm and smooth – but the P1 is slightly sweeter with female vocals. Both are very good examples of dynamic driver tuning done right with clean transitions and a cohesive overall signature.
The problem here is the P1 is at least 1/3 the price of the Lyra – and for me personally I really do enjoy both. If money wasn't an object, and this warmer smoother signature was what you enjoy, then the Lyra is really a very good IEM – even for its price. Conversely, if money is a little tighter, and you enjoy a little more presence in the upper mids, then the P1 really is a no brainer, and an earphone which really has no right to be priced the way it is (incredible bargain).
CAMPFIRE AUDIO LYRA – SUMMARY
The Lyra is an incredibly well built single dynamic driver IEM, with a very good ergonomic fit, and also an extremely good quality cable. A quick note on the cable too – it retails on ALO’s site for $149 if sold separately. One should also be mindful of the materials used with the manufacture of the Lyra – from the custom beryllium driver to the high quality ceramic shell.
Fit and comfort is brilliant, and of all the Campfire IEM's I've tried to date the Lyra is easily the most comfortable.
Sonically the Lyra is quite nicely balanced, but with a subtle emphasis on the low end, a well tuned transition through the mid-range, and enough sparkle through the lower treble to give sufficient detail without being overly bright. To me it is slightly on the warm side, with a clear and lush vocal presence.
At a current RRP of USD 749, the Lyra is definitely at the upper end of single dynamic drivers, and when you look at the build quality and materials, I can see why it is priced the way it has been. For many though, they will look at up and comers like MEE's P1 and wonder if the Lyra is really worth the asking price. To me it is a fair asking price given the well tuned signature and quality craftsmanship, and you can't really fault what Campfire has managed to deliver simply based on some of the competition.
So would I buy these, and would I recommend them to friends or family? On a pure quality basis I can see their worth, but for me personally they do not quite fit my overall signature preferences. I can see the appeal though and for anyone who like this type of signature they should definitely be considered. 4 stars from me – and that is mainly due to the price point. If these were priced a little lower I'd have no problems giving them a 5 star. Great build, great sound – great IEMs.
Once again I’d like to thank Ken and Mark for making this opportunity available.
Thanks gents. Unfortunately haven' heard either the IE800 or the Nova yet - hopefully someone else may be able to help with feedback / comparative comments on those.
Hi Brooko, I noticed that you focused on frequency response, which is of course a key aspect. However, I would like to hear more explicitly about detail retrieval and clarity in terms of comparing the Lyra with other iems. Could you please comment more about that? Thanks!
@Kunlun - there is section on clarity and resolution. Unfortunately I can't go back and do specifics now as they are already on the way to the next tour member - and I won't provide that sort of detail unless I can A/B directly. They resolved pretty well - all the detail is there - just not at the forefront or highlighted compared to IEMs like the DN2000J.
Pros: Versatility in tuning, comfort, clarity and resolution, bass quality and speed
Cons: Microphonic tangly cable, tuning parts very small + easy to break/lose, tweezers are useless, mid-range limited tuning with existing filters/bores
For larger views of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
The FLC8S was one of those IEMs which burst onto the scene with practically no warning, and before I knew it, had become very popular with a very loyal and vocal fan base. I wanted to try them for the purposes of a review (to see if the tuning did indeed live up to the hype) – but I've had a policy of not soliciting review samples for a while now (preferring vendors to approach me). Some may think this strange, but in my own way I find it easier to be objective if I have no obligation to the manufacturer. Lets just call it one of my quirks.
So my thanks for the opportunity to review the FLC8S go out first and foremost to Forrest Wei for approaching me, and sending the sample, and second to Djscope and nmatheis for both contacting Forrest and recommending me. I really appreciated the chance to hear them.
ABOUT FLC Finding a lot of information about the Company is pretty difficult – Google didn't turn up a lot of hits – just a lot of very positive reviews about their products (always a good sign). So for the most part the following is taken from a number of different websites and also some info about Forrest borrowed from Nik's very good review. FLC really is based around Forrest Wei's mastery of tuning and design – and his list of credentials is very impressive. Over the years, he has worked at companies including Ultimate Ears, Harmon and Jabra – and been heavily involved in designing and tuning both universal and custom in-ear monitors. Anyone who's heard the Oriveti Primacy will possibly also recognise some of his tuning in that earphone as well (distinctive 1-2 kHz bump). One of Forrest's goals has been to sell an affordable IEM with enough tuning options to give the user the ultimate choice in the final signature. This goal was realised with the release of the FLC8S I'm reviewing today.
DISCLAIMER The FLC8S that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to FLC that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the FLC8S for follow up comparisons. I do not make any financial gain from this review – it is has been written simply as my way of providing feedback both to the Head-Fi community and also FLC themselves. I do acknowledge that t is extremely unlikely that FLC will ask for the IEM to be returned, so for all intents and purposes it is provided freely.
I have now had the FLC8S since February. The retail price at time of review is USD 360.00 (Lend me UR Ears), or USD 340.00 (Shenzhen Audio)
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
For the purposes of this review - I mainly used the FLC8S straight from the headphone-out socket of my FiiO X3ii + E17K and/or X3ii + IMS Hybrid Valve Amp , and also used (at different times) my iPhone 5S, and a variety of the other DAPs I have around me. Although I tested them with an amplifier, I do not think they benefit from additional amplification (I use mine mainly for consistency when reviewing and also to extend battery life on the X3ii). In the time I have spent with the FLC8S, I have noticed no changes in the overall sonic presentation, but am aware that I am also becoming more used to the signature of the FLC8S as I use them more often (brain burn-in).
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The FLC8S arrived in one of the most unique boxes I've come across in over 100 audio reviews. At first glance it looks like a beige rectangular cube – sort of like an outer shipping box – measuring approx 160 x 130 x 90 mm. It has the FLC logo on the top and sides, and the simple description “Hybrid Headset”.
[size=inherit][/size]
The quite plain looking box
Top lid flipped open to reveal the FLC8S
Pressing down on the foam reveals a hidden compartment
At the bottom left of the front face is a simple instruction to “open here”. Lifting this cover reveals the FLC8S safely nestles in a form-fitting blue foam top section. On the foam is neatly labeled “press here” - and this reveals a second small compartment holding the tweezers and cable. OK – I was a bit lost, what about the accessories and filters? Then I noticed the bottom left again – once again telling me to “open here”. This revealed there was an upper tray and lower tray – with the lower tray opening like an older style jewellery box. The bottom tray housed the instruction manual, case (which holds the tips and other accessories), and the clever filter holder.
[size=inherit][/size]
The original foam layer flipped to reveal cable
Box opened right out to reveal lower cavity
Bottom cavity holding case and filter holder
The entire package is incredibly comprehensive and includes:
The FLC8S
The metal alloy screw top carry case
The metal alloy filter holder (also screw top)
4 sets of clear silicone tips (L, M S, VS)
4 sets of black silicone tips (L, M S, VS)
1 4-core replaceable cable (twisted)
1 cleaning tool
1 airline adaptor
1 3.5-6.3 mm adaptor
3 pairs ULF tuning plugs (with a couple of spares)
3 pairs LF tuning plugs (with a couple of spares)\
4 pairs MF/HF tuning bores
[size=inherit][/size]
All the accessories
The very sturdy FLC8S case
Case top (you can just make out the subtle FLC etching
The carry case is incredibly solid, and quite large – 80mm diameter and just under 40mm in height – so it is more transportable than portable (not really pants pocket friendly), but it is perfect for protection and I've used it a lot for transport between home and work. It is nicely lined with soft felt for protection.
The filter case is likewise solidly built and comprises a capsule with screw on top, and inside is a mould which has enough room to house 3 pairs of tuning bores, and 2 pairs of each of the ULF and LF tuning plugs. For most people this is ideal, as they'll have the others fitted on the FLC8S – but when we come to the tuning section I'll explain why I would have personally liked room for another couple.
[size=inherit][/size]
Tip selection
Very good FCL manual (more on that later)
The filter holder / fob.
Overall – the packaging is unique, very comprehensive, and looks like it covers everything you're likely to need.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (From FLC)
FLC8S
Type
Hybrid dual BA + 8.6mm Dynamic Driver
Frequency Range
20 Hz – 20 kHz
Impedance
11 ohm
Sensitivity
117 dB @ 1kHz 1mW
Cable
1.2m 4 core single twisted copper (replaceable)
Jack
3.5mm gold plated, straight jack
Weight
Approx 14g with tips in place
IEM Shell
Hi-gloss strengthened plastic
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN The FLC8S is made in either high gloss blue or high gloss red, and at first glance you'd think it was made of polished coloured aluminium. But once you have it in your hand, the extremely light weight and feel confirms it is actually a moulded two piece plastic shell. Each earpiece is very ergonomic – designed to fit the contours of the ears, and it is clear that Forrest has taken great pains to ensure the shell is well rounded and without sharp edges.
[size=inherit][/size]
Shell showing the 3 filter placement choices
Side view back and front - showing nozzle extension
Internal side - note left/right markings
The shell (without cable) measures approx 18 mm long, 18mm from top to bottom, and the main body is only around 10mm deep – with the nozzle extending a further 8-9mm. The body is L shaped, and the nozzle is perpendicular to the main body (rather than angled). There is one port on the external face which houses the LF tuning plug, and one port on the internal face with houses the ULF tuning plug. The nozzle has no lip, but is threaded, and the lip is provided by the addition of the tuning filter bores (which simply screw in place).
[size=inherit][/size]
Nozzles upright - note the very smooth rounded surfaces
Main bore/filter fitting - screw in
ULF filter placement
Each IEM internal face has a L or R indicator stamped into the body mould adjacent to the cable connection socket. This socket is two pin, and takes 0.75mm pins – I.E. the same configuration as the UE TF10. The sockets are raised, with the cable plugs fitting snugly over the top for added strength. The cables also have L or R printed on the outer plug housing.
[size=inherit][/size]
LF filter placement
MF/LF filters create natural lip for tips
Cable guides and TF10 type connector
Each cable has 75mm of formable memory wire for form fitting over your ears, and I find this quite handy for getting them to sit correctly when worn. The cable is 4 core single twisted copper strands in continuous twist from the plugs to the jack (the twisted pair becomes a twisted quad below the Y-split) which allows a simple replacement of the jack to convert to balanced.. Unfortunately the cable, while quite flexible, is also both microphonic, and also retains a lot of memory making it quite unruly. It tends to retain any kinks and can be quite difficult to fully straighten. One of the photos below shows the FLC8S next to the MEE P1. Both were nicely coiled when I gently placed them in the light box. Its sad such a great design has such a poor cable.
[size=inherit][/size]
Another view of the cable connection
The unruly cable next to the MEE P1 (beautifully coiled)
The 4 strand cable - easy to balance
The Y-split is a simple piece of heat-shrink, which is quite effective, and has another piece of clear plastic tube above it for a cinch – but unfortunately this does not work well with the cable jack (it is too tight – and therefore too hard to effectively move). The jack is right angled, gold plated, and has both good strain relief, and also is smart-phone case friendly.
[size=inherit][/size]
Y-split and cinch
Jack
Jack next to filters (so you can see how small they are)
All in all, the build quality is pretty good and seems nicely robust. I'm not overly fond of the cable, and if this was to become my daily use IEM, the first thing I would do is to replace it with something having less microphonic and unwanted memory tendencies. For the price, it is one of the weaker points in an otherwise very good build.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION The ergonomic shape of the FLC8S combined with the light weight, and well rounded surfaces make this IEM one of the most comfortable I've ever worn. If you take the time to properly mould the memory wire, it sits perfectly on my ears, and is definitely flat with my outer ear (which allows me to lay easily on my side with the IEM's intact). About the only slight issue I've found with the FLC8S is that it has a tendency over time to slowly push the preferred foam tips I use out of my ears. They never push all the way out, and don't usually break the seal – but I do wonder if the nozzles were slightly angled maybe the issue would disappear. Something for Forrest to consider with subsequent releases perhaps.
[size=inherit][/size]
Spinfits and Sony isolation tips both worked
as did Spiral Dots and Ostry tuning tips
My preferred foams which also worked with no filter/bore
If I was using any of the tuning bores, they all come with a slightly serrated metal edge which allows for easy grip when fitting or removing – and this acts as a lip for the nozzle. This means that practically any tip will fit, and this includes smaller bore tips like Spinfits or Sony Isolation tips. And this also applies to Ostry tuning tips and even wider bore Spiral Dots. My preferred foams also fit well, and the only downside was that if you are using a foam tip, and change filters often, the serrated edge can tend to pull the internal bore tube out of the foam tips. Because I had to make so many changes when I was measuring all the filters – I actually destroyed two pairs of generic foam tips.
The one thing that some may not know is that you can also use the FLC8S without any internal bore filter fitted. There is enough of the nozzle to accommodate a tip but using this method means there is no lip. Fortunately for me foam tips fit well, and this has become my preferred default configuration.
Isolation with the FLC8S will depend on the seal you achieve, insertion depth, and also the choice of filters. Being a ported design with a shallow fit, I'd describe the isolation as adequate or average – without being excellent (few hybrids are). With music playing, you're isolated pretty well. They would be good for most public transport but I personally wouldn't be using the FLC8S for long haul flights.
So the new FLC8S looks good, has a good build, and is extremely comfortable to wear. Let’s have a quick look at my initial impressions, then take a look at the filters in more depth, and then move onto sonic impressions.
FIRST IMPRESSIONS - USABILITY So the FLC8S had just arrived, I was keen on seeing how the filters worked, so I grabbed the included tweezers and attempted to remove the first ULF filter. Crack – plastic filter snapped at the head and was basically ruined. Thankfully there was a spare red one. So first lesson learned – the included tweezers are unwieldy, and basically there as a decoration (for me anyway, they are simply too big and pretty much useless). Much easier to simply use your finger nails.
So I carefully put a white cloth down, and proceeded to remove the red ULF and inset a clear. Slightly missed the hole (they are tricky) – said filter ricochetted off the housing, and disappeared into our carpet. After 10 minutes searching I gave up (thankfully again Forrest had included spares), so from that point on I have been super careful both removing and fitting the filters plugs, and haven't lost or broken another one yet. But word to the wise – these are really tiny, not easy to grip in bigger fingers, and quite frustrating at times to fit. Forrest – if you had a system where you could have a fixed dial with 3 or 4 settings, and the dial stayed intact – that would be a far nicer system! But I still have to give it to Forrest and his team – the “tweakability” of the filter combinations is quite incredible – and that is what makes this IEM so unique. So lets look a little more in depth at the filter system
FILTERS AND FREQUENCY GRAPHS The FLC8S comes with 3 different options for controlling the sound – an ultra low frequency port (ULF), a low frequency port (LF), and the tuning bores which control mid-range and high frequencies (MF/HF). Forrest advertises 36 different combinations and you have 3 ULF plugs, 3 LF plugs, and 4 MF/HF bores – so using simple math that gives 3 x 3 x 4 = 36 combinations right. Well actually not quite. The LF can be used without a plug, and it has another subtle change to the mid-bass. Also the nozzle can be used without a bore at all (I'll show you in a minute why I prefer it that way) – and that has quite a change on the frequency response. You could also remove the ULF filter – but I'm not counting that as an options as it cripples the sound. So the reality of tuning now is 3 (LF) x 4 (LF) x 5 (MF/HF) = a massive 60 different tuning combos.
[size=inherit][/size]
MF/HF filters
ULF filters
LF filters
The only problem is that trying to make sense of all those options can simply be too daunting. But thankfully Forrest includes some recommended options and combos on the instruction manual – see the images.
[size=inherit][/size]
Explanation of filters from the manual
Forrest's recommendations (see graphs at bottom of review)
Channel matching is excellent
Looking at the filters themselves – this is how they stack up:
Filter
Colour
Effect
ULF
Red plug
Most sub-bass
ULF
Grey plug
Medium sub-bass
ULF
Clear plug
Least Sub-bass
LF
No filter
Most mid-bass
LF
Black plug
Medium/high mid-bass
LF
Grey plug
Medium/low mid-bass
LF
Clear plug
Least (flattest) mid-bass
MF/HF
Gold bore
Most MF and medium HF
MF/HF
Green bore
Most HF and medium MF
MF/HF
Black bore
Medium MF and medium HF
MF/HF
Blue bore
Least HF
MF/HF
No Bore
Moves MF and relatively high HF
But the easiest way I can show you what I’ve found is simply to show the comparative changes by graphing them. The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will likely be significantly higher. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and should be used for comparative results only – they do not reflect the true calibrated frequency response(particularly above 4-5 kHz). For each setting I've used the most neutral filters for the other settings (grey LF, grey ULF, and black MF/HF) as controls and then shown the range of filter options for the single filter being tested.
ULF filter Three options – clear, grey and red. They are all a straight plastic, very small and fiddly to fit, and you do need to handle them relatively carefully (easy to lose and can break). They control the sub-bass pretty well, and their overall curves are very dependent of the LF filter used in tandem. The red filter has the most rise, and this does add some slam. The grey extends pretty well before a slow roll-off around 40 Hz. The clear has the least, but can also be the most natural depending on which LF (mid-bass) filter you use.
LF filter Although there are 3 actual filters, in reality there is 4 viable options – clear, grey, black and none. The actual filters themselves are small, rubbery, and the hardest to fit. Often I found the black and grey filters quite close to each other (the graph shows it too), but you an get more variation when combined with different ULF filters. Once again the clear has the least mid-bass, and TBH the only time I really liked this one was when combined with the red ULF (creates a very flat bass signature). Using no filter here gives the most mid-bass, and as you'll see later in the review, provides some surprising results when configured to my liking.
MF/HF filter/bores Easiest to fit, and 4 physical options – with each filter being just under 10mm long, and screw directly into the nozzle, creating a natural lip to retain the tips. Personally for me (while they were pretty good), none were perfect. My issue (and this is purely my preference) is that each filter had a bump to a varying degree between 1-2 kHz, then a drop-off between 2-3 kHz. You'll notice many earphones are often flat between 800 Hz and about 1.5 kHz before rising as they head toward 2 kHz. The reason for that is that the mid-range is where we are most sensitive anyway, and while boosting between 1-2 kHz can create heightened clarity around the vocal area, some can find this a little fatiguing, and it can also narrow the perception of sound-stage – bringing the vocalist too close. The other issue with bumping the 1-2 kHz area, is that if it is not followed with a subsequent rise (or at least flat) section in the 2-3 kHz area, you can lose some presence or sweetness - especially with female vocalists. The one thing I do like about these filters though is the way they provide options in the lower treble. Your choice will often be dictated by how sensitive you are to brightness, with the green being the brightest and blue the smoothest. I personally find the filter with the best overall cohesion between upper and lower mids is the green filter. It has the least bump at 1-2 kHz and it is tempered by a secondary small rise in the 2-3 kHz range which helps with presence, but unfortunately it comes with a cost of heightened treble.
Fortunately there is another option which involves removing the MF/HF bore altogether. This removes the 1-2 kHz bump, and leaves you with a rise at 2-3 kHz, but unfortunately also a big rise at around 7-8 kHz (which is quite a peak).
Real Versatility And here is where I can show you how truly versatile the FLC8S really is. My ideal signature is a relatively flat bass with a slight mid-bass hump, and either flat extension through to sub-bass or slight roll-off. For mid-range I'm OK with a slight recession between the mid-bass hump and (hopefully) a nice gentle rise in the presence area at 2-3 kHz. After that – the lower treble area often doesn't matter as much to me, as long as there is enough presence to hear good decay on cymbals, and hopefully not trigger my sibilance areas. It's not surprising that many other earphones also mimic this type of response. Well choosing the clear ULF with no LF filter, and then no MF/HF filter gives an almost perfect curve. The clear ULF (least impact) combined with no LF (most mid-bass) gives a really nice flat curve with a gentle (and very natural sounding) mid-bass. And this combo with the mid-range bump moved into the presence area gives almost perfect balance. And in reality starts almost sounding HD600 like. It's not perfect – but for me it is something I can listen to for hours on end – and that is the magic of Forrest's filter system. My only wish is that there were a few more options with the bump in the 2-3 kHz area. Anyway – I've graphed my preference against the red/black/gold that many have talked about as being one of their favourite signatures. And remember I said I would have liked more room in the filter holder? This is simply because I have 2 HF/LF filter bores and 2 LF filters which I'm not using, and are effectively “spares”.
The great things is that there is no right or wrong – you set the FLC8S up the way you like it.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS With 11 ohms impedance and 117 dB sensitivity, you can run the FLC8S from any source – power is simply not an issue. The one thing you will need to take into account though is the 11 ohm impedance – which suggests an ideal damping ratio of around 1ohm or less on your source. With typical pop/rock songs on the iP5S I’m usually at a volume level of around 25-35%, on the X3ii around 30-40/120. I did try amping with the E17K and IMS Hybrid Valve amp, and while I noticed no obvious signs of improvement from a driving point of view, both amps were pretty good matches for tonality. The Hybrid Valve amp brought a slightly softer tonality to the lower treble peak ( a really nice combo actually), and with the E17K I could apply -2 or -4 treble, and just soften the same peak. The result was brilliant. So overall I'd recommend amplification if you simply want to adjust the tonality a little, or if you have issues with high impedance on your normal source's output. You won't need it for the power.
EQUALISATION It doesn't need it – and that is what the filters are for. But as I outlined above, it can be useful for smoothing peaks if you need to.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the FLC8S. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X3ii + IMS Hybrid Valve amp as source.
The filter set-up I used was clear, none, none as outlined above in the filter section. I actually thought a lot about skipping this section altogether – but thought it was still important to write my thoughts on what is for me the best filter combo.
Thoughts on General Signature The sound signature with this filter combination is well balanced with a slight tendency toward brightness, incredibly clean and clear, and tilted slightly toward more presence for female vocals (male vocals are still very good but have slightly less presence). Mid bass sounds beautifully natural with enough thump to be pleasing, but without anything dominating. Sub-bass is there, but again balanced and does not dominate.
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used: Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
Very, very clean presence and presentation with perfect balance and real cohesion between bass, mid-range (vocals), and upper end detail (hi-hats/cymbals).
Extremely good detail retrieval with every nuance shown but not etched (it still sounds very natural). Cymbals are incredible – especially the decay.
Guitar has wonderful edge – crisp and clean
Vocals in both tracks are nicely presented in contrast to the rest of the track, and blend naturally.
Sound-stage, Imaging, and Sibilance Test Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
Very precise directional cues, just outside the periphery of my head space – so very good feeling of width and reasonable feeling of depth.
Imaging is incredibly clean and clear and excellent separation of instruments without being clinical.
Dante's Prayer was practically perfect with stunning contrast between the cello, piano, and Loreena's excellent vocals.
Good immersion (applause section of Dante's Prayer) with impression that crowd is around you (you are sitting right in it). Probably a little more width than depth, but good none the less.
Sibilance is present in “Let It Rain” - I know it exists in the recording. However it isn't overly emphasised, and for me is very tolerable.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Very good mid-bass impact and great portrayal of the overall dark mood. Mark's vocals have wonderful presentation of timbre, and texture (“Muddy Waters”) and whist they may not be as deep as I have heard them before, I am really enjoying this particular presentation.
Good speed and bass resolution – not too boomy, but there is slight decay present.
No signs of bass bleed into the mid-range
Surprisingly good sub-bass (even with this filter combo) for rumble (“Royals”) but not over-done (perfect balance actually).
Ella's vocals are incredibly presented – with good separation from mid-bass impact.
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake me Up, Ship To Wreck.
Wonderful transition from lower-mids to upper-mids – this is one of the strengths of the FLC8S with this filter combo
Very euphonic presentation with good air and a wonderful touch of sweetness to female vocals
Brilliant contrast between vocals and lower pitch of instruments like cello
No signs of stridency with Aventine and Strong
Really good mid-bass impact with music with highly dynamic content (Feist, FaTM) – contrast between bass and vocals is excellent.
Superb with slower female vocals and especially with artists like Gabriella Cilmi, Norah Jones and Sarah Jarosz.
I could listen to this filter combo for hours with any of my female artists. It's not just good, it's practically perfect.
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Immortality (Seether), Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Presentation of male vocals will depend on how you normally like them, but this tuning is really extremely good and I'm appreciating how well this particular tuning does both male and female vocals without thinning either one.
Bass presence is impactful from the mid-bass, and this provides good contrast with lead guitar.
Excellent portrayal of classic rock artists like 10CC and Jethro Tull. Mix of detail and tonality is very good.
Brilliant with acoustic tracks – especially Eagle's Hotel California. Spatial cues are very good with this live track too
Showed a little thinness with Seether's cover of Immortality, but it doesn't take long to get used to the tonality and is still very enjoyable.
Love the balance with Pearl Jam – and the texture and tonality with Eddie's vocals is very good. Cymbal decay was magic in this track (there is a lot of it). Another band I could listen to for hours. So clean and clear, and I think this is what really makes all vocal tracks stand out.
Other Genre Specific Notes
Not going to go through all of these – as this is just such a great all-rounder
Particularly strong with Jazz and Blues
Loved classical – airy, detailed, sombre when it needed to be, light and deft for stringed ensembles.
Would possibly add a bit more sub-bass for some electronic, hip-hop, trance or dub (just a matter of dropping the red filter in)
Indie could get a bit peaky – depending on the recording, but easy fix if used with the E17K, or simply dropping the 7-8 kHz peak down with EQ.
COMPARISONS This section is practically impossible to write as you can change the outcome depending on the filters. So instead I thought I'd stick with my favoured filter combo, and show you why I like it (by comparing it with some other reasonably well-known IEMs).
All of these comparisons are very subjective – and influenced by my own preference, physiology and bias. Comparison was once again with the X3ii + IMS HVA. All IEMs were volume matched with a 1 kHz tone and using a proper SPL meter (I used a splitter and variable resistor so I could swap back and forth quickly). The reason I chose each of these for comparison was very simple – all of them have roughly similar to this particular filter combo.
FLC8S (~$340) vs DUNU Titan 5 ($140)
FLC8S next to DUNU Titan 5
Graphed comparative frequency response
While the Titan 5 is less than half the price, it was one I though of immediately because tonally these sound extremely familiar. On build quality, the T5 has the advantage with the full metal shell, and it has a much better cable than the FLC8S. Fit on both is good and I'd be hard pressed to find a winner on the comfort stakes. Sonically the two IEMs are incredibly similar with the T5 having a little more sub-bass slam, while the FLC8S might have a little more mid-bass impact. They both have an incredibly similar mid-range with the same excellence overall in vocal presentation. The T5 is a little less spacious, a little more vivid, and a little brighter in its overall presentation. If I was shopping for one sound only, I'd probably pick the T5 – but the beauty of the FLC8S is that this is just one of the signatures it can mimic. If you are a tweaker – the extra outlay is worth it. FLC8S (~$340) vs Fidue A83 ($270)
FLC8S next to Fidue A83
Graphed comparative frequency response
This time we're triple hybrid vs triple hybrid, and I think a few might be a little surprised with the similarity here between the FLC8S and Fidue's former flagship. Both have similar build quality and comfort. The FLC8S has the better cable connection system (Fidue had past issues with the MMCX connectors), but the Fidue has the better default cable (although I am now using one of Trinity Audio's). Sonically there are similar traits in the bass, transition to mid-range, and even the lower treble. The difference primarily is in overall speed (the FLC8S just seems to have quicker transitions), in mid-range weight (the A83 is slightly thicker but also more vivid), and in clarity and cleanliness of tone (the FLC8S is simply cleaner and clearer). Although the Fidue is quite a bit cheaper, this time it isn't a fair comparison. The added versatility of the FLC8S simply trumps the A83 – although both remain excellent choices.
FLC8S (~$340) vs DUNU DN-2000J ($300)
FLC8S next to DUNU DN-2000J
Graphed comparative frequency response
Again this is triple hybrid vs triple hybrid, and for this one I couldn't use the splitter because plugging both at the same time affected the bass response (both being very low impedance), so I had to plug and unplug. Build quality overall once again goes to the DUNU – the all metal build and quality of the cable is simply better than the plastic shell and unruly FLC8S cable (despite the 2000J cable not being removable). Comfort is with the FLC8S though with the better ergonomic fit. Sonically both are similar sounding from bass through to mid-range, with the main difference being in the upper mid-range transition through to lower treble. The 2000J has more heat in this area and this is something I haven't really noticed a lot in the past, but which is very apparent now that I'm used to the FLC8S. Switching between the two, I would call the 2000J slightly peakier and also the FLC8S a little cleaner sounding (and that is quite some achievement). Hard to pick a winner based on this filter combo, but again taking into account the versatility of the filter tuning it is really hard to go past the FLC8S – even compared to an IEM I absolutely love.
FLC8S - SUMMARY
My time with the FLC8S has been a revelation – frustrating at times, but with plenty of “aha”moments along the way, and while I was somewhat less impressed at first, I've grown to slowly appreciate it more and more as time has gone by.
The overall build quality is very good despite its plastic shell, and the ergonomics really are top notch – very comfortable overall. The one issue (which many have commented on) is the cable. It is simply very unruly, retaining too much memory, and having slightly too much microphonic noise to be acceptable on an IEM in this price range. If there is one glaring thing Forrest should change first it would be the cable. Something well built and flexible like the Trinity cables or MEE P1 would be ideal IMO.
The real value of the FLC8S though is its filter system, and while they can be cumbersome to change, and confusing with so many options available, once you get used to them you can definitely tweak the sound a lot to match your preferences. My only gripe with the filters (aside from the fiddly nature) is that the tuning bores all have the same or similar 1-2 kHz bump which I personally find OK short-term but fatiguing long-term. In fact if I didn't have the ability to change this one particular trait, I would not be as positive towards this IEM as I am now.
The FLC8S won't be for everyone – you have to be prepared to experiment (a lot). It definitely helps to have a knowledge of the type of signature you like, and for me – my measurement system really helped me nail down the ideal combo.
So would I recommend this IEM – unreservedly so. While it is not perfect, the versatility you get for the asking price is well worth it. An easy 4 stars for me (with an extra 0.5 added for the innovation) – and all it would take would be inclusion of filters to move that mid-range a bit, as well as a decent cable, and this would be an easy 5 star review.
Well done Forrest – innovative, unique and truly well thought out. Thank you for giving me the chance to listen to and evaluate your creation.
APPENDIX The following graphs are my measurements of Forrest's default recommendations. They show some of the versatility of the FLC8S:
Hello Brooko, thanks for the detailed review! I currently have the DN-1000s and GR07 BE and I would like to upgrade. I really like the DUNU’s bass and clarity and the GR07’s soundstage and balance. Ideally, I would like a (slightly v-shaped) IEM with articulate bass, not so prominent mids, brightish treble, wide soundstage and more “character” than the DN1000s. Would you recommend the FLC8s over the Pinnacle P1 or the 2000J? Cheers!
Cons: Bass (overwhelming and bleeds through mid-range), confusing advertising / marketing claims, driver flex
For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
My first experience with T-Peos was a couple of years ago, when I had the chance to review their (at the time) new budget based triple hybrid IEM – the Altone 200. The Altone 200 set a new benchmark for me in sonic signature – especially at the introductory price (at the time) of USD 125.00 – an incredible value. In fact I was so impressed that I actually purchased the Altone from T-Peos and they remain one of my favourites even to this day (every so often I still get them out and am again wowed by their signature). Since then I've had the chance to try their Altone 350 and unfortunately came away less than impressed (too much bass for a flagship), but their build and overall quality was really good. Recently I was approached by James Park and asked if I would like to listen to and review their new Rasiel IEM. With memories of the Altone 200 and after reading a little about them (“filled with the sound of the vacuum tube”), I was pretty excited to try them out.
For anyone who hasn’t heard of T-Peos, the parent company SWP Shinwoo is a Korean electronics company founded in 1986 who started developing earphones in 2012, changed their company name to T-Peos in 2013, and at the same time launched their first 3 way hybrid IEMs. Their focus is on quality (reading their website is impressive), and it definitely showed in the machining of the Altone 200 and Altone 350.
The Rasiel sample I have has some markings under their Korean partner banner (TGD) – and you can find the website here. RRP for the Rasiel is around USD $40
DISCLAIMER The Rasiel IEMs that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to T-Peos that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the Rasiel for follow up comparisons. I do not make any financial gain from this review – it is has been written simply as my way of providing feedback both to the Head-Fi community and also T-Peos themselves.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
For the purposes of this review - I mainly used the Rasiel straight from the headphone-out socket of my FiiO X3ii + E17K or iPhone 5S, and also a variety of the other DAPs I have around me (concentrating a lot on the portability factor so this included X1 and M3). Although I tested the Rasiel with an amplifier, I do not think they benefit from additional amplification (I use mine mainly for consistency when reviewing and also to extend battery life on the X3ii). In the time I have spent with the Rasiel, I have noticed no changes in the overall sonic presentation.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The T-Peos Rasiel arrived in a striking retail box, in two tone black and yellow with gold text. The box has a window to give you a first glimpse of the Rasiel, along with a by-line (“killing sound”) which would prove to be somewhat prophetic – and a another phrase which really whetted my appetite (“filled with the sound of the vacuum tube”). On the rear of the box is a graphic of a tube, and below that specs and a list of accessories. The box measures 78 x 145 x 54 mm. Inside is a second 3 sided box/tray with a clear plastic mould to hold the Rasiel. Under this is a hidden compartment which houses the accessories.
[size=inherit][/size]
Front of the retail box
Rear of the retail box
Side with messages - note the "powerful bass"
The accessories are listed as:
3 pairs of standard silicone tips
1 fabric pouch
1 shirt clip
What I received was slightly different – 3 pairs of tips, 1 pair of Comply T200s (M), and no pouch or clip.
[size=inherit][/size]
Interior packaging
Included accessories (differ from the box description)
Included tips
For USD 40.00 I can't really fault them so far. There aren't a lot of accessories – but if the build and sound are good at this price point, the accessories will soon be forgotten
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (From T-Peos)
Type
Single dynamic driver IEM
Driver
10mm dynamic
Impedance
8 ohms +/- 15%
Sensitivity
110 dB +/- 2 dB
Frequency Response
20 Hz – 15 kHz
Weight
8g
Cable
Fixed 1.2m dual twisted pair braid
Jack
Right angled 4 pole gold plated
On cable control
Single push button + mic
IEM shell
Chrome plated alloy
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graph below is generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graph, don’t take it as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will likely be significantly higher. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion and further in the review you can see comparative data to some other IEMs in a similar price bracket.
[size=inherit][/size]
Default response and channel matching
CSD - note the bleed through the mid-range
Rasiel vs Altone 200
The channels have very good matching from 20 Hz right through to about 4 kHz, and then from 4-10 kHz they get out of whack a little. I measured several times and the results were consistent. The disparity in the measurements is not really noticeable with music playing, but is with a sine sweep.
The graph pretty much reflects the default sound of the Rasiel – very V shaped with a lot of sub bass, strong upper mid-range, and quite sucked out or recessed vocal area (comparatively).
I've also included a graph of the Rasiel vs the Altone 200 because it really does emphasise the extent of the bass. And the third graph shows the CSD plot. Make note of the extent of the bass decay into the 1-2 kHz area (the heart of the mid-range), as this is something we'll go into more depth on in the sound section.
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN The Rasiel is beautifully built, and has a horn speaker shape very similar to the Final Audio Design Piano Forte family of IEMs. It is a 2 piece shell – with the front shaped like a cup or dome, and the rear like a cone. There is a visible seam, but it is so smooth I don't really notice it. The shell is a polished chrome plated alloy, and measures 33mm from the tip of the nozzle to the rear of the IEM, and has a diameter of 13mm at its widest point. The nozzle is relatively short (just 4mm in length from the base of the Rasiel shell), but has a generous lip, and tips so far have fit really well. The nozzle is 6mm in diameter at the tip, and has a mesh protective covering. The cable exits the shell adjacent to the central seam and next to it on both ear pieces is a single vent or port. The right earpiece has a single R to designate L/R – whilst the right simply has their house brand designation “TGD”. The IEM shell screams quality for a $40 offering, and my only niggle was that the highly polished shell exterior as pretty hard to photograph (#firstworldproblems) due to the mirror finish and lighting. Seriously though – this is a really nice looking IEM.
[size=inherit][/size]
Gorgeous finish and horn speaker shape
Nozzle front on
Cable exit and vent
The cable exits are both reasonably well stoppered – which doubles as a short strain relief. The cable is 1.2m, fixed, and consists of 2 s twisted pairs from jack to Y split, and then separated pairs above that. The right hand ear piece has a control unit (single push button) and microphone approximately 20cm from the IEM body. Worn over ear, this sits just below my jaw line. Cable down it sits below my collar.
The push button control is a universal standard (one-click pause/play, two click next track, three click previous track, and press and hold activates Siri on the iPhone 5S for me). The controls work with both the iPhone and also the FiiO M3. The microphone is pretty clear, and I had no problems being clearly understood when test calling my wife.
[size=inherit][/size]
Quality jack and cable
Mic and push button control
Quality Y-split
The Y split is a metal tube with good strain relief at entry and exit. The jack is right angled, 4 pole (for the remote button), gold plated, and a mix of chrome alloy and rubber. It is also iPhone + case friendly. The overall quality of cable is very good and reminds me a lot of the Trinity cable quality. It also has very low micro-phonics (virtually none when worn over ear). One thing missing though is a cable cinch.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION I have one ear canal slightly different to the other one (my right is very slightly smaller) - so I tend to find that usually single silicon flanges don't fit overly well. However the included silicones really surprised me as they fit extraordinarily well, and I have to admit that this shape allows me to comfortably fit a variety of tips that normally I can have issues with. The tips I tried and was successful with included standard foam or Comply foam, Spin-fits, Ostry tuning tips, Spiral Dots and Sony Isolation tips (although the Sonys caused vacuum issues – not enough venting). There was also a bit of driver flex in both ears – which disappeared once adjusted, but is worth noting.
[size=inherit][/size]
Foam tips - helped control vacuum issues and driver flex
Spiral-dots and Ostry tuning tips
Sony Isolation and Spin-fits
Comfort is excellent – the Rasiel really does disappear into my ears when worn, doesn't protrude past my outer ear, and I could lie down with them quite comfortably. Isolation is really quite good for a dynamic driver, and I would definitely say above average. These would be good enough for public transport.
So the Rasiel has a stellar build, good cable, very good fit, good isolation – are we on the way to a winner? Unfortunately for me this is where the plaudits stopped.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the Rasiel. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X3ii + E17K as source, and the included silicone tips or a pair of Trinity foam tips (I swapped over a couple of days listening).
Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Confusion and Mixed Messages I'm going to start here because the advertising around the Rasiel is a little misleading, although I think I understand what they were trying to convey now (it is still a paradox though). On one hand, T-Peos advertise the Rasiel as “being filled with the sound of the vacuum tube”. I have a couple of tube amps, and I love the second order harmonics they bring. But anyone who's dealt with different tube amps and different tube combinations will know that you can have a range from warm and syrupy to clean and linear (I prefer the latter). The one constant I've found with tube based amps though (apart from the high voltage output) is that the ones I've tried sound incredibly pleasing, rich, and at the same time clean. It is difficult to describe. The Rasiel sounds nothing like this – it is not close. In fact the last thing I would think of when describing the Rasiel's signature would be “tube like”, and if I had a tube amp with the Rasiel's default characteristics, I'd be rolling tubes or getting rid of it.
The second message is “killing sound”, and I do think this is intentional – it isn't supposed to be “killer sound” which is very much a Western term. If you go the Rasiel website you get a picture of a breaking tube with the “killing sound” by-line, and a sentence underneath saying that “the new sound will be heard did not listen to the original”. And here's the paradox – they say it is tube-like, and now they say its not. It's very confusing – and for my money anyway – this does not reflect the way a good tube amp sounds. Which makes their “killing sound” statement quite accurate (or in other words – “breaking the mould”).
Thoughts on General Signature I was hoping T-Peos would break away from their bass enhanced house sound, but sadly this wasn't to be. From first listen (before I graphed them) I knew within 2 minutes that this was a continuation of a certain house tuning. Very V shaped, massive bass, and quite a nice upper mid-range which sounds quite clear and clean and is pretty good with female vocals (similar to Altone200). The problem is that the lower mid-range is recessed a lot compared to upper mid-range and bass, and this gives perfect grounds for the bass to bleed and engulf lower mids (and it does).
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used: Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
The sax is really good, slightly thin and reedy though, but the first noticeable thing is the bass guitar which just dominates everything.
Detail retrieval is actually pretty good – cymbals are clear and clean with good decay, but some of this is lost depending on drum beat or bass guitar at that particular part of the track.
Guitar has good edge but is thin and a bit peaky on Sultans.
Marks vocals very recessed and thin on Sultans
Overall quite capable of exposing detail, but bass simply overpowers a lot of it.
Sound-stage, Imaging, and Sibilance Test Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
Average directional cues, and just on the periphery of my head space – so relatively good width, but little of depth
Imaging is a bit diffuse – but it is the bass with “Tundra”. One of the first times I've heard it so boomy. I won't finish the track – it is too fatiguing.
Good contrast between vocals, piano and cello with Dante's Prayer. Loreena's vocals are quite good (not as rich as I'd like, but they have good presence and air). This track is pretty bass light so it is quite a pleasant experience.
No real immersion (applause section of Dante's Prayer) and instead of the crowd being around me, it is quite flat – good width, but no depth.
“Let It Rain” is a better, a little more holographic, but Amanda's vocals are a bit diffuse and also a little distant. Sibilance is present in “Let It Rain” - I know it exists in the recording. However it isn't overly emphasised, and for me is tolerable. Cymbal presence in this track is good but the bass guitar is starting to dominate again and between that and the distance in the vocals, it almost sounds a little veiled. Not my favourite rendition of this track.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Uggh – no, and no, and no. Strong sub-bass impact (mid-bass as well), but Mark's vocals are distant and the mid-range is practically lost in the extended bass decay.
Poor speed and bass resolution – strong impact, and very boomy.
A lot of bass bleed into the mid-range
Massive sub-bass and rumble (“Royals”) and for me it is hugely excessive, and bleeds all over Ella's vocals – drowning them out in passages.
Good bass does not sound like this.
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake Me Up, Ship To Wreck.
Good transition from lower-mids to upper-mids lending nice euphony and sweetness to female vocals
“Aventine” is a little hollow and the cello is slightly out of contrast (too strong) compared to Agnes vocals
“Strong” is good but the deep bass dances on the verge of drowning some of Hannah's vocals, and they sound a little thin (and on a well tuned IEM they really aren't)
Big bass impact with music with highly dynamic content (Feist, FaTM). Some will probably like this – I just find it too overemphasised and fatiguing after a while.
Tracks with lower bass impact are actually pretty good (Gabriella Cilmi was really rather nice), and I can't wait to EQ these to get some balance.
Mixed bag with female vocals. There is a mid-range in there, but it will need to be coaxed out.
Male Vocals Tracks used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Immortality (Seether unplugged), Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Male vocals are a lot thinner, and very distant comparative to bass.
Surprisingly good portrayal of older classic rock artists like 10CC. Good detail with nice presentation of vocals – but I'd still like to dial that bass back a bit.
Eagle's “Hotel California” was great until the drums kicked in (finger picked guitar was brilliant) but again the bass line is boomy and simply over done.
Nils Lofgren's “Keith Don't Go” showed again that there is actually a really good mid-range with the Rasiel – it's just not allowed to breathe. Vocals on this acoustic track were in a lot more balance. Quite enjoyable.
Pearl Jam was not good – too much distance on Vedder's voice and once again the bass guitar dominated, and even started drowning out some of the slow cymbal decay which makes this track one of my favourites.
Genre Specific Notes I started to go through my usual repertoire but I had very little positive to say with virtually any of the genres I usually test with. Bassy tracks (EDM, Trance) are overdone, vocal tracks are too distant and often muffled. Alt rock tracks which often have a lot of detail (Floyd / PT) were often muffled. Even Classical sounded unnatural. By now my ears were thoroughly fatigued and it was time to call it quits, and look at amplification, EQ and comparisons later in the week.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The Rasiel is easily powered straight out of the portable devices I have, and I haven’t experienced any issues with the iPhone 5S, or any of the FiiO DAPs. With typical pop/rock songs on the X3ii and E17K, 20/60 on low gain (E17K) gets me 65-70dB and that is more than enough for me. With the iP5S I’m usually at a volume level of around 25-30%. Amping netted no rewards, and ironically, introducing tubes (the IMS HVA) only made things worse.
EQUALISATION Time for redemption. My main issues with the Rasiel are the overwhelming bass and the distant lower mids. To fix the first I lowered the bass using the E17K by 8dB (much better), although the upper mid-range was now a little too accentuated and peaky. Simple to fix and simply involved an equal drop of 8dB treble, and lets try again with Pearl Jam. Ahh – much better. This is a signature that allows the music to breathe, and the Rasiel responds well. I’ve graphed the difference so you can see the effect. I would pay for this signature as a default.
COMPARISONS Reluctantly I dropped the EQ back to flat again and prepared to compare it to some IEMs in a similar value category which are also quite bassy and V shaped. I the end I chose the Rockjaw Arcana 2, Trinity Hyperion and Brainwavz S0. All of these comparisons are very subjective – and influenced by my own preference, physiology and bias. Comparison was once again with the X3ii + E17K
T-Peos Rasiel ($40) vs Brainwavz S0 ($30)
Rasiel vs Brainwavz S0
Comparative frequencies
Looking at the total package, both have extremely good overall build quality and are extremely comfortable to wear. The Rasiel has a far better cable (I'm not a fan of the Brainwavz S0 flat cable), but the S0 is miles ahead in terms of accessories. Sonically the S0 is very warm with a huge mid-bass hump and quite veiled mid-range due to the combination of mid-bass and quite subdued upper mids and treble. The Rasiel is much more bassy, but it is counter-balanced by the quite bright treble. In a direct A/B comparison, my preference lies with the Rasiel – simply because it is clearer overall. The bass is a lot stronger though – really surprised me. Neither are good examples of a balanced signature.
T-Peos Rasiel ($40) vs Trinity Hyperion [discontinued] ($40)
Rasiel vs
Trinity Hyperion
Comparative frequencies
Both again have extremely good overall build quality and are extremely comfortable to wear. The Hyperion has the slight edge in fit as they do literally disappear due to their size. The accessory package is definitely in favour of the Hyperion with a good carry case and bigger choice of tips, and this time the cable quality is evenly matched, and maybe slightly in favour of the Hyperion. Sonically, the Hyperion has more mid-bass than sub-bass where the Rasiel is the opposite. Both are V shaped, and both have a nice mid-range with emphasis on upper mid-range and a relatively recessed lower mid-range. Where the Hyperion excels though is in a far better balance, and nothing is masked or veiled. This comparison isn't close – they Hyperion is the far better performing earphone.
T-Peos Rasiel ($40) vs Rockjaw Arcana 2 ($40)
Rasiel vs RockJaw Arcana2
Comparative frequencies
Its likely that not too many people have heard the Arcana2 – and it is one of the few very bassy earphones which really ticked my boxes at the time. Like the Rasiel it has a very V shaped frequency plot with strong sub-bass, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Both have good build quality and similar accessory packs (assuming the Rasiel eventually does come with a cloth carry bag and shirt-clip). But the quality of build materials and finish on the Rasiel is better, as is the cable. The frequency plot is very similar with the major difference being the relative amount of sub-bass and upper mid-range compared to the lower mid-range. And even though the plots are similar – in relative terms (for a V shaped signature), the Arcana is simply more balanced – and this means less bleed. It's still very warm, and now when I hear it I am probably less enamoured to its overall signature than I one was. If I could transfer the Arcana's sound signature into the Rasiel's body, you'd have a pretty good “bass oriented” earphone.
T-PEOS RASIEL – SUMMARY
It's funny how disappointed you can be when you're hoping for a signature similar to one you once had from a company. I loved the original Altone 200 from T-Peos. It scored 4.5 stars from me when I first reviewed it, and I still get it out every now and again when the mood takes me, and I am still wowed by its tonality. At the time it redefined how good a triple hybrid could be for sub $150. And the Rasiel has a lot of good things going for it. It has a stellar build with a good cable, and fits very well indeed (great comfort level for me). It's also priced at a level which is very affordable, and for this sort of build quality that is not a common thing.
But by trying to break the mould, and aim for something which is very much bass enhanced, they've simply gone to far IMO. There simply is no possible excuse to have an earphone which bleeds so badly into the mid-range, and there ultimately lies its main issue. It simply has no balance – just a strong V shape which is out of proportion to the mid-range. And this is ultimately very fatiguing. Now I'd be the first to admit that I'm not the intended audience for this earphone (middle aged white bloke who prefers a brighter – or at least more balanced – signature), but I can't go past the fact that most bass-heads I know are also fans of quality bass. And this isn't quality bass. It's just quantity bass. "Bassheads" are often misunderstood, and my discussions with @Hawaiibadboy over the last couple of years have given me a better appreciation of the sort of bass quality he looks for. I don't think he'd like the Rasiel either.
I hate giving 2.5 stars with the Head-Fi rating system, because it scores as a negative rather than neutral, but I simply can't give this earphone a 60% (3 star) ranking. Sadly – I would not recommend the Rasiel to anyone I know. There are far better IEMs out there. Once again though, I’d like to pass my thanks to James and T-Peos for giving me the chance to try these, and I am genuinely sorry that I can't give them more positive comments.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO T-PEOS Start again from the Altone 200 signature (I've told you this before) – and build a better more balanced IEM from it as a base. I really look forward to seeing what you can do with a different direction. Sadly this current pursuit of bass at any cost is not helping your reputation (with me at least).
"For anyone who hasn’t heard of T-Peos, the parent company SWP Shinwoo is a Korean electronics company founded in 1986 who started developing earphones in 2012, changed their company name to T-Peos in 2013, and at the same time launched their first 3 way hybrid IEMs. Their focus is on quality (reading their website is impressive), and it definitely showed in the machining of the Altone 200 and Altone 350.
The Rasiel smaple I have has some markings under their Korean partner banner (TGD) – and you can find the website here. RRP for the Rasiel is around USD $40"
I bolded the a spelling error. It's a simple switching of letters, happens to me all the time.
Pros: Build, fit, clarity, cable quality and selection, accessories, tuning (bass) options, response to EQ
Cons: Very V shaped signature, some stock tips not ideal for nozzle size (slip off)
For larger views of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
[size=24.57px]INTRODUCTION[/size]
Following the successful launch of the initial Trinity range on Kickstarter, Bob (Trinity's CEO and lead designer) received a lot of calls for a sport suitable IEM. So even before the initial campaign ended, he was designing a new model using the original Delta hybrid configuration of their own dynamic driver paired with a custom tuned BA. This time it was placed in a more ergonomic chamber and a waterproof coating was added along with a shorter third cable ideal for exercise (armband DAP wearers). The resulting product of course was the Trinity Atlas and that is the model I'm reviewing today.
The underlying vision and philosophy behind Trinity is that high quality audio should be affordable to everyone – and without compromising on build or materials. And just because it is high quality – it shouldn’t mean it has to be high cost.
Bob has been incredibly busy over the last couple of years, and this has led to the release of the original range (Hyperion, Techne and Delta original), and since progressed to the Atlas, Delta V2 and coming releases of the Phantom/Master series (Sabre, Master4, Master6, Phantom Air and Hunter – some of these are still in active development). One thing I really appreciate with a company like Trinity, and a designer like Bob, is the willingness to involve his consumers in some design decisions, so that the end result is (hopefully) exactly what the target audience is looking for.
I count myself incredibly lucky to have been able to work with Bob on most of his projects – via email, PM and phone – and must admit a little personal pride in what Trinity have achieved. So without further comment – let’s have a look at the Trinity Atlas – a community inspired project.
DISCLAIMER I was provided with both prototype models during development and also a couple of final models of the Atlas on its completion. These were given free of charge both for development during the programme, and for the purposes of reviewing them after the public release. Bob does not expect them back. In the past I have purchased Hyperion (2) and the Delta V2, but have been provided free review samples (either prototypes or finals) of the Hyperion, Techne, original Delta, and Sabre.
Apart from my obvious involvement in feedback on the development, I am not otherwise affiliated with Trinity in any way, nor do I make any financial gain from my contributions.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
For the purposes of this review - I mainly used the Atlas straight from the headphone-out socket of my FiiO X3ii + E17K, and also used (at different times) my iPhone 5S, and a variety of the other DAPs I have around me (concentrating a lot on the portability factor so this included X1 and M3). Although I tested the Atlas with an amplifier, I do not think they benefit from additional amplification (I use mine mainly for consistency when reviewing and also to extend battery life on the X3ii). In the time I have spent with the Atlas, I have noticed no changes in the overall sonic presentation, but am aware that I am also becoming more used to the signature of the Atlas as I use them more often (brain burn-in).
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The Atlas arrived in the traditional grey Trinity retail “book style” retail box – measuring 125 x 190 x 55mm. The box is simple but well presented, with the Trinity logo and model (ATLAS) on the front cover, and specifications, accessories and a little about the Atlas on the back.
Front of retail box
Rear of retail box
Opening the front flap reveals an information and instruction manual. On the main part of the box is another protective board cover with clear window to observe the new Atlas. Opening this then reveals a foam inner with appropriate cut-outs to house the Atlas, carry case, provided tips, and filters.
First opening
Inner packaging behind the cover
The entire package is comprehensive and includes:
The Atlas
The Trinity zippered carry case
5 pairs of tuning filters
4 sets of silicone tips (1 pr small, 2 pr medium and 1 pr large)
1 set of dual flange silicone tips
2 sets of foam tips (1 pr med and 1 pr large)
1 multi braid cable, 1 x long multifunction mic/control cable, 1 x short multifunction mic/control cable
1 shirt clip
1 straight to right angle jack converter
The complete package
Tip selection
The Trinity standard case is black, has an internal mesh pouch for tips etc, is triangular shaped, and zips to open/close. It is reasonably spacious, has a good mix of both flexibility and strength – so it is comfortable to pocket, but still protects your IEMs really well.
Filters and holders
Cables, right angle connector and clip
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (From Trinity)
I've included the specifications from the original Delta for comparison.
Atlas
Delta Original
Type
Hybrid BA + 8mm Dynamic Driver
Hybrid BA + 8mm Dynamic Driver
Frequency Range
19 Hz – 21 Khz
19 Hz – 21 Khz
Impedance
16 ohm
16 ohm
Sensitivity
110 +/-3dB @ 1kHz 1mW
110 +/-3dB @ 1kHz 1mW
Cable
1.2m std + 1.2m & 0.6m mic enabled (replaceable)
1.1m OFC std (fixed)
Jack
3.5mm gold plated, straight jack
3.5mm gold plated, straight jack
Weight
Approx 18g with tips in place (std cable)
Approx 14g with tips in place
IEM Shell
CNC polished aluminium
CNC polished aluminium
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graph below is generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graph, don’t take it as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will likely be significantly higher. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
The graph is provided merely as a point of discussion and further in the review you can see comparative data to some other IEMs. The graph in this section is the Atlas with gold (or middle) filter. I used this filter for this section simply because it is the middle filter. In the filter section of the review is a graph showing all filter frequency responses.
The Atlas is a lot different to the original Delta, and is probably closer to the Hyperion in its overall tuning. It has a definite V shape with a steady rise from mid-range to mid-bass and still rising into the sub-bass. This gives quite a warm low end with pretty prominent bass impact. The fundamental mid-range from around 700 kHz through to about 1.5 kHz is relatively recessed which makes male vocals particularly a little thin, and vocals generally appear a little further back in the mix. There is a rise in the upper mid-rang from about 2-4.5 kHz, and this gives the Atlas sweetness with female vocalists and also a lot of clarity and air. There is a peak in the lower treble at 9kHz which brings some added definition to cymbals and violins, and which also largely avoids sibilance. The channel matching is excellent.
I'll go into much more detail when we reach the sound section.
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN The Atlas is quite a different beast compared to the former Trinity models. Gone is the cartridge style casing, replaced by a 2 piece aluminium ergonomically designed casing – similar to the Shure SE series in shape. One of the features of the Atlas is a splash proof coating so they are ideal for an environment which could contain high moisture (i.e. exercise).
Internal face - nicely rounded
Filters/nozzles simply screw out
The Atlas measures approx 18mm across, and 16mm from top to bottom (11mm if you're just counting the main body). The depth is approx 15mm at its widest point, and another 5mm once the filter/nozzle is fitted. There are 5 filter/nozzle options which are interchangeable for tuning. These nozzles also fit the Techne (and will fit the upcoming Sabre). The nozzle is angled forward which is ideal for securing a comfortable fit – especially with the somewhat shallow fitting (more on that later).
External face
From the rear - nozzles are nicely angled forward
The shell is two piece and has a visible seam, but the body is nicely rounded, and the fit is comfortable. On the orange model the seam is quite noticeable especially at the nozzle, but it appears pretty sturdy at this stage, and I've had the Atlas for quite a few months now. There is a small vent at the top on each earpiece adjacent to the MMCX connectors. The housing is beautifully rounded in the internal side with hard edges, and a simple R or L is printed here for piece identification. The outer facing side is convex and actually feels really nice when handled (sort of fits your thumb). It has the Trinity logo printed on both earpieces.
Casing on these isn't 100% perfect, but joins are secure
Connector cavity - vents adjacent
At the top of the atlas is a forward angled hood which houses a standard MMCX socket. There are three cables included – the standard Trinity multi-braid cable, and two rubber jacketed cables equipped with a multifunction remote and microphone. The standard cable measures 1.1m in length from jack to MMCX connectors. The connectors so far have been pretty firm and I've had no issues with connections cutting out. The Atlas connectors freely rotate in their sockets. The male connectors have an L or R embedded in the plastic, but they are relatively hard to see. This does not matter as much with the Atlas – as it is impossible to mistake which earpiece is which due to their over-ear ergonomic design. There is good strain relief at the socket junction. The Y-split is a really nice looking aluminium tube with good flexible strain relief at the bottom, and a superbly implemented cinch at the top. The jack is gold plated, with spring loaded strain relief. It is iPhone case friendly, and for those who prefer a right angled jack, Trinity include a right angle adaptor which works really well.
MMCX connector
Trinity's excellent standard multi-braid cable
The standard cable is the same as the one used on most of the Trinity products and is one of the best I've used (until you get into the mega-buck boutique cables). The cable consists of 4 OFC wires – both sets of two tight woven into a spring like weave. These two weaves are then woven again together below the Y-split. The end result is an extremely flexible, and gorgeous looking cable with virtually no memory. The weave also gives it strength. So far in my testing (over-ear), cable noise is minimal – unless it comes into contact with a rough surface (zipper etc). The cable can be slightly tangle prone – but careful winding and storage solves that easily.
Long mic/control cable
Short cable - ideal for ports armband
The secondary cables are both rubber jacketed, have 4 pole straight jacks, and this time each has a combined single button control and microphone port on the left hand earpiece. The push button control is a universal standard (one-click pause/play, two click next track, three click previous track, and press and hold activates Siri on the iPhone 5S for me). The controls work with both the iPhone and also the FiiO M3 (but strangely not with the X1 and X3ii – I'm guessing this is a FiiO issue rather than Trinity). The control unit hangs about 4cm below my ear if worn over ear, and just below my chin if worn straight down. The microphone is pretty clear, and I had no problems being clearly understood when test calling my wife. The cable also has reasonably low microphonics when worn over ear. The 0.6m cable is ideal for armband use or top-pocket. I only have two gripes with these cables. The first is that the cinch keeps coming off the cables (they are open both sides – and work their way off easily. The second is that the cables tend to retain memory. But considering you're getting three cables, and they are all working pretty well – these are minor critiques.
Overall the build quality and attention to detail is very good.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION I have one ear canal slightly different to the other one (my right is very slightly smaller) - so I tend to find that usually single silicon flanges don't fit overly well. Atlas's shape is also ergonomic, so that means shallow fit. But because of the angle of the nozzle, I was surprised when I found that the Atlas's large silicone single flange worked perfectly – as did the included foam tips. There is one issue though – because the nozzles have a very narrow diameter, the included foams and double flanges tend to come off in my ears (if I get a very good seal) – frustrating! I did experiment with a number of after market tips, and had good fits with Ostry tuning tips, Sony Isolation tips, Spinfits, and Comply T200s. The ones that surprised me were the Shure Olives. If you are prepared to force them on, they fit quite nicely and provide an excellent seal and great durability.
Stock tips - dual flanges won't stay intact
Stock foam (again issue with staying on) but Ostry tips are good
Isolation with the Atlas will depend on the seal you achieve, and with the Shure Olives I find isolation is average to above average for a hybrid containing a vented dynamic driver. With music playing you’re isolated pretty well – but I wouldn't be using these for long haul travel.
Spinfits and Sony Isolation are excellent
Spiral Dots are a no-go, but Shure Olives fit if you force them
Comfort for me is absolutely excellent and the ergonomic design is really ideal. After a while I don't really notice I'm wearing them and they sit slightly inside my outer ear (YMMV). I would have no problems lying on my side or sleeping with the Atlas intact.
COLOURS The Trinity website offers the shells in 6 colours – orange, red, purple, silver (polished aluminium), gun-metal, and matt black. During the KS campaign there were also some two tone offerings available. I've got a couple of photos of some models I had during the tuning process – all are quite striking. More on the Matt black one in the next section.
Prototypes and test samples
My "specials" are matt black on the left
ATLAS FILTER SYSTEM Each filter stands just under 7mm tall, with a 4mm diameter threaded base, and 5mm nozzle. The filter screws easily into the main body of the Atlas, and can be replaced for different tuning. Most of the filters have a very small tuning vent located toward and just above the threaded section. The vents control the bass quantity. There are 5 filters included but the changes they give are pretty minor.
Filters x 5
Filter measurements - changes are mainly bass related
Red has the most bass – about 15 dB above the mid-range at 50 Hz, then each filter has a little less bass than the previous (about 1.5 – 2 dB increments): red, orange, gold, purple, and ending with gun-metal. My favourite filter is actually the gun-metal.
The spare filters are housed in the now familiar little aluminium tube with the screw on cap (you get two of them). This is brilliant as the tubes fit neatly in the case pocket so that your filters are always with you – and the tube should be big enough so that it won’t get easily lost.
When Bob sent me the final Atlas for the review – he actually initially sent me the black matt pair you saw in the previous photos. They are beauties, and as luck would have it – they are also unique (see the graph). They have a reasonably big drop off in bass from about 200 Hz down. They also fit my preferences quite well (I sometimes just EQ them up a little). The amazing thing is that the channels on this pair are also perfectly matched. Lucky – or did Bob do it intentionally? I don't know – he won't say, but I love my unique Atlas.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the Trinity Atlas. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X3ii + E17K as source, and this time the gun-metal filter in place (my preference), and Bob's included silicone tips. I was using the orange “correct” Atlas (not my “specials”).
For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the E17K was around 20/60 (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-70 dB (with peaks around 75 dB). Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Thoughts on General Signature The sound signature with the gun-metal filters is still mildly V shaped with enhanced bass, a recessed primary vocal area, and slightly elevated upper mid-range or presence area. Bass – even with this filter can tend to be a little boomy but the balance overall is not too bad. Lower mids are a little on the lean side, but there is a natural progression through the upper mids with female vocals being emphasised a little more. For those who've had Trinity products before you will recognise some of their “house sound”.
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used: Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
Slightly noticeable mid-bass hump (even with this filter) and bass guitar does tend to slightly dominate – it is worse with other filters
Good detail retrieval – cymbals are very clear and clean with good decay. If I switch to other filters some of the finer detail can be masked.
Guitar has extremely good edge but is slightly peaky
Vocals in both tracks are leaner in the mix and a little to the back.
Sound-stage, Imaging, and Sibilance Test Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
Good directional cues, and just outside the periphery of my head space – so reasonably good width, but slightly less feeling of depth
Imaging is relatively clean with precise placement
Good contrast between vocals, piano and cello with Dante's Prayer. Loreena's vocals are more forward than Knopfler's in the previous section.
Good immersion (applause section of Dante's Prayer) with impression that crowd is around you – but again more sense of width than depth.
A nicely holographic presentation of “Let It Rain” - not as good as Delta V2, but still thoroughly enjoyable. Sibilance is present in “Let It Rain” - I know it exists in the recording. However it isn't overly emphasised, and for me is very tolerable. Again cymbal presence in this track is really good.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Strong mid-bass and sub-bass impact and strong portrayal of the overall dark mood. Mark's vocals are lean compared to the quantity of low bass.
Average speed and bass resolution – strong impact, and is quite boomy.
Signs of mild bass bleed into the mid-range
Strong sub-bass and rumble (“Royals”) and for me it is mildly excessive.
Good separation between mid-bass impact and vocals (“Royals”) with the gun-metal filter – but with the gold filter there is again some bass bleed.
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake Me Up, Ship To Wreck.
Very good transition from lower-mids to upper-mids – this is one of the strengths of the Atlas, and typical of most Trinity IEMs
Euphonic presentation with good air and a definite touch of sweetness to female vocals
High contrast between vocals and lower pitch of instruments like cello – again if switching to gold filter bass is stronger than I would like.
No signs of stridency with Aventine and Strong – a good sign of cohesion
Good bass impact with music with highly dynamic content (Feist, FaTM)
Surprising with tracks with lower bass impact because the Atlas can actually be quite delicate when it wants to be. Gabriella Cilmi was really stunning, as was Norah Jones and Sarah Jarosz. Definite tick for most female vocalists.
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Immortality (Seether unplugged), Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Male vocals are thinner, and more distant. Turning up the volume increases the bass impact – trade-off if you are not a big bass lover.
Bass presence is generally visceral with rock - very dynamic, but there is good contrast with lead guitar.
Really good portrayal of older classic rock artists like 10CC. Good detail and contrast between bass and vocals with “Art for Art's Sake”.
Managed to make the Eagle's Hotel California a little boomy but otherwise a good rendition. Does guitar very well.
Surprised me with Seether's cover of “Immortality” - quite nice tonality and balance – but still wishing male vocals had a little more weight.
Good but not great with Pearl Jam. Vedders vocals could use a little more presence, and the timbre isn't as good as it can be. Cymbals and high level detail is really good with the gun-metal filter. Not a fan of the gold filter with Pearl Jam though. Vedder sounded like he was standing about 2 foot from the microphone, or they simply had the mixing board wrong.
Genre Specific Notes
Not bad at all with Alt Rock, although bass guitar does dominate slightly with PF's Money. It wasn't bad – but I've heard better. PT's Trains was really quite good – could be the higher pitch of Wilson's vocals.
OK with Blues and Jazz – double bass was good and there was a nice mix of higher end detail with cymbals / hi-hats. Sax was slightly subdued and although enjoyable would not be my first choice for this genre. I tried briefly with the gold filter, and just as quickly took it off again.
EDM, Hip-hop and Trance (if you love impact) can really hit hard. This was a real strength of the Atlas and I guess this is where the V shaped signature really shines. Eminem was really dynamic – and AVB's album “Imagine” was really enjoyable – especially when the tracks with female vocal backing were queued. The Flashbulb was really good (this group isn't overly bass heavy electronic) and “Reunion” was an album I thoroughly enjoyed with the Atlas.
Pop was pretty good generally and results tended to vary depending on the artist. I could see a younger generation really enjoying this presentation especially with some more modern female pop artists. Perhaps I am starting to show my age a little.
Indie was really good for the most part. A lot of Indie artists seem to have a higher pitched vocal presences, and the Atlas captured this really well. Band of Horses was dynamic and very enjoyable, and Yesper's combo of acoustics and sublime vocals was a real treat. Wildlight's “Dawn to Flight” was enjoyable, but because there is a reasonable bass presence in the track already, I found it tended to encroach on Ayla's vocals slightly. Take some bass away though and the presentation of vocals is brilliant.
Classical was surprisingly very good. The upper mid-range lent a lot of presence and space to strings, and the low end was pretty good for piano and cello. Female opera was also sublime, but male opera just a little thin.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The Atlas is easily powered straight out of the portable devices I have, and I haven’t experienced any issues with the iPhone 5S, or any of the FiiO DAPs. With typical pop/rock songs on the iP5S I’m usually at a volume level of around 25-35%, on the X3ii around 30-40/120. I did try amping with the E17K, but noticed no obvious signs of improvement (apart from when I was utilising the EQ). I tried the IMS Hybrid Valve Amp, but this wasn't a good pairing – too much warmth for my liking. I couldn't say that the Atlas either benefits from or needs additional amplification.
Perfect exercise partners FiiO M3 and Atlas
Atlas, the X1 and sports arm-band
EQUALISATION By now you'll understand that my biggest issue with the Atlas is simply the amount of bass. So I set out to use some very basic EQ (using the E17K's tone controls) to reduce the mid and sub-bass. I returned to Wildlight's track “Dawn too Flight”, and set the bass to -4dB (still using the gun-metal filters). This will be too bass light for many, but for me the transformation was incredible. Wonderful balance, and I was left with a much flatter signature, and Ayla's incredible vocals. This is the beauty of the tone controls on the E17K, and the best part is that it can be done in a few seconds, and you don't need to be adept at EQ to get something you like very quickly. The Atlas responds extremely well to EQ, and I've added a graph below so you can see the result of the change. Modifying the bass also stops some mid-range from appearing so recessed. While I had the Sabre on the rig, and out of impulse really, I dropped both bass and treble tone controls by -4 dB. The result was wonderful and this ended up a lot closer to my ideal signature. Magic!
EQing with the E17K - both -4 bass, and then -4 bass and treble
X3ii and E17K are a perfect duo to tame the Atlas bass
COMPARISONS This is always a hard one to judge – because you want to compare with something in a close price bracket, and also with something that others may be able to get an instant feel for. The problem is that I know people with an interest in some of Trinity's other line will want comparisons to the new Delta V2 and also the upcoming Sabre. So in the end I chose them and also The MEE Pinnacle P1 – as it is also an ergonomic design and in a very similar price bracket.
All of these comparisons are very subjective – and influenced by my own preference, physiology and bias. Comparison was once again with the X3ii + E17K, but this time the Atlas had the gold filters in place (middle filter option). Note that you have the ability to reduce bass further by utilising the gun-metal or purple filters. All IEMs were volume matched with a 1 kHz tone and using a proper SPL meter. Lastly please note that while the Atlas KS price was $150, I am using the current price of $218 from the website for comparison.
Trinity Atlas (~$218) vs Trinity Sabre with gold filter (pre-order $110 / normal $185)
Atlas vs Sabre
Frequency graph
Both have fantastic build quality – precision aluminium shells, 3 x quality detachable cables (the Sabre's are two pin), and extremely good comfort when worn. Both also come with 5 sets of filters – but in the Sabre's case the 5 are duplicated with longer filters for deeper insertion (the filters will fit both Sabre and Atlas in case you are wondering). The filters also pretty much do the same thing as far as sonic change goes – increasing or decreasing the bass response. The one advantage Atlas still has is the slightly more ergonomic fit, and also the water-proof coating. Sonically the Atlas has more bass and is more V shaped. The Sabre has very good bass in its own right though – and the push pull dynamics are very smooth and quite fast for a dynamic driver as well. In the mid-range, the Sabre is a little more intimate (vocal presence is closer), and they have a more vibrant tonality. For the introductory price at the moment, the Sabre really is an obvious choice – and when it reverts to normal RRP a lot will depend on your preference for bass (with the Atlas able to deliver far more / very elevated levels). For me personally I would definitely take the Sabre – unless I was using EQ or using my “special blacks”. If EQ or the “specials” are an option – then the Sabre has a real fight on its hands.
Atlas (~$218) vs Delta V2 with gold damped filter ($145)
Atlas vs Delta V2
Frequency Graph
Again both have fantastic build quality – precision aluminium shells, and quality detachable cables (the Delta V2's are two pin) – although this time the Delta has 2 compared to Atlas's 3. Comfort wise I have to give the nod to the Atlas – the ergonomic shell is just a better fit (for me the Delta V2 is still very comfortable though). Both come with filters, the Atlas 5 vs the Delta's 7. This one isn't a fair fight though as you can make a lot more changes with the Delta's filters – and for me it is one of the best filter systems available in the market today. Once again the Atlas has the splash proof covering as a bonus. Both are dual hybrids – and you still have the Trinity house sound with an elevated upper mid-range. Switching back and forth between the two though, the first thing you easily notice is the Atlas's elevated bass and more impactful thump, and also the peakier upper-mids. The Delta V2 just sounds a little more relaxed, a lot more balanced, and for me anyway – more refined and smoother. This one isn't a fair fight – to me the Delta V2 will always be the better option simply for its variety in tuning.
Atlas (~$218) vs MEE Pinnacle P1 ($199)
Atlas vs MEE Pinnacle P1
Frequency graph
The P1 is a full range dynamic, but it is ergonomic, built incredibly well, and in the same price bracket. Comparatively both have very good builds – with the Atlas being a lot lighter with its polished aluminium vs the P1's forged zinc alloy, The shaping on both is very comfortable, but this is one time the Atlas is bested for fit (for my ears) – the P1 is just figure hugging and totally disappears when worn. Both have quality accessories, both have detachable cables (Atlas x 3 vs P1 x 2), and both have very good carry cases. The P1 is a lot harder to drive and does benefit from extra amplification vs the Atlas being easily driven by almost anything. The other two features the Atlas has which P1 doesn't is the variable filter system and also the splash proof covering. Sonically there isn't a huge amount of difference between these two – the Atlas has the bigger bass response but they are very similar in the upper mid-range. And to show the versatility of the Atlas, if you sub in the gun-metal filter, the bass actually matches extremely closely to the P1 with the main difference now being slight differences in that upper mid-range. This one would be hard to pick a winner.
ATLAS - SUMMARY
The Trinity Atlas is an interesting earphone for me. I always preferred the Delta's mid-range (both 1 & 2) so after it was completed, I didn't really spend a lot of time with it. And when I first started seriously using it for this review and spending a lot of time just listening and playing around with the filters, it slowly dawned on me how good it actually is.
The Atlas has the typical Trinity finish and attention to detail, quality accessories – including a choice of 3 cables, and a filter system which (while not as good as Delta V2's) still gives some reasonable options for controlling the bass response. It has a water resistant finish, and when coupled with the short cable, it is ideal for exercise and gym use. Fit and comfort are very good.
Sonically the Atlas is pretty much V shaped no matter which filter you use, and all that changes is the quantity of bass you end up with. This can vary from almost bone shaking in its intensity (red filter with copious sub-bass) to the gun-metal with a mild v shape. The mid-range is typical Trinity with leaner low-mids and elevated upper mids. These make female vocalists a true joy to listen to, but it does come at the expense of a little body (leaner) with lower range male vocals.
The Atlas responds well to EQ, and a few judicial tweaks can net a really pleasant sound signature far more appealing to my own preferences. For my own tastes the gun-metal is the best filter and the one thing I would have liked would have been another filter even slightly lower in bass quantity.
Overall though, the Atlas is still one heck of an earphone and at the KS original price was an absolute bargain. At its current RRP, you still get a lot of earphone for your money – and while it is not maybe 100% to my tastes, for what it offers it is an easy 4 star recommendation (it would be 5 star at the KS price).
Finally thanks to Bob for allowing me to be involved along the way – and for supplying the samples for the review.
Good calls - pretty sure the drivers are the same - and the freq diff will be down to a combo of housing and damping. I actually still have some of the old filters off the Rockjaw Alpha Genus. If I can find them, I'll dust them off and give them a try. Some of those were internally damped.
Cons: Left right marking hard to see, people with smaller canals may have issues with ft
For larger views of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
I've been working with Trinity (Trinity Audio Engineering) for almost a couple of years now. I don't get paid, but I do get listened to, and it has given me the opportunity to be part of the development process. Basically I try the new prototypes, give my feedback, and then it is up to Bob (the man who is the brains behind Trinity's product range) who ultimately makes the decisions on how to proceed – and whether to incorporate our feedback (myself and a couple of other Head-Fiers) into the final product.
The underlying vision and philosophy behind Trinity is that high quality audio should be affordable to everyone – and without compromising on build or materials. And just because it is high quality – it shouldn’t mean it has to be high cost.
Bob has been incredibly busy over the last couple of years, and this has led to the release of the original range (Hyperion, Techne and Delta original), and since progressed to the Atlas and Delta V2, and coming releases of the Phantom/Master series (Sabre, Master4, Master6, Phantom Air and Hunter – some of these are still in active development). One thing I really appreciate with a company like Trinity, and a designer like Bob, is the willingness to involve his consumers in some design decisions, so that the end result is (hopefully) exactly what the target audience is looking for.
I count myself incredibly lucky to have been able to work with Bob on this project – via email, PM and phone – and must admit a little personal pride in what Trinity have achieved. So without further comment – let’s have a look at the new Delta V2 – the upgrade from the original Delta which helped kick off Trinity's journey.
DISCLAIMER I purchased the Delta V2 at a discounted rate from Trinity Audio (and yes I paid real money). I would have been provided a free review sample if I had asked for it – but the original Delta was one of my favourites and I definitely wanted this one personally. In the past I have purchased Hyperions (2) also, but have been provided free review samples (either prototypes or finals) of the Hyperion, Techne, Delta, Atlas and Sabre. Apart from my obvious involvement in feedback on the development, I am not otherwise affiliated with Trinity in any way, nor do I make any financial gain from my contributions.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
For the purposes of this review - I mainly used the Delta V2 straight from the headphone-out socket of my FiiO X3ii + E17K, and also used (at different times) my iPhone 5S, and a variety of the other DAPs I have around me. Although I tested them with an amplifier, I do not think they benefit from additional amplification (I use mine mainly for consistency when reviewing and also to extend battery life on the X3ii). In the time I have spent with the Delta V2, I have noticed no changes in the overall sonic presentation, but am aware that I am also becoming more used to the signature of the Delta V2 as I use them more often (brain burn-in).
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The Delta V2 arrived in the traditional grey Trinity retail “book style” retail box – measuring 125 x 190 x 55mm. The box is simple but well presented, with the Trinity logo and model (DELTA) on the front cover, and specifications, accessories and a little about the Delta's on the back.
[size=inherit][/size]
Front of the retail box
Rear of the retail box
Inside the front cover
Opening the front flap reveals a couple of booklets attached to the inner cover – one with a list of all Kickstarter Backers, and a second which is an information and instruction manual. On the main part of the box is another protective board cover with clear window to observe the new Deltas. Opening this then reveals a foam inner with appropriate cut-outs to house the Delta, carry case, provided tips, and filters.
The entire package is comprehensive and includes:
The Delta V2
The Trinity zippered carry case
7 pairs of tuning filters
4 sets of silicone tips (1 pr small, 2 pr medium and 1 pr large)
1 set of dual flange silicone tips
2 sets of foam tips (1 pr med and 1 pr large)
1 multi braid cable, and one cloth covered microphone enabled cable
1 shirt clip
1 straight to right angle jack converter
[size=inherit][/size]
The inner compartment
Full package contents
Included tips
The Trinity standard case is black, has an internal mesh pouch for tips etc, is triangular shaped, and zips to open/close. It is reasonably spacious, has a good mix of both flexibility and strength – so it is comfortable to pocket, but still protects your IEMs really well.
[size=inherit][/size]
Case, cables, clip and right angle jack converter
The filters
Undamped vs damped
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I've included the specifications from the original Delta for comparison.
Delta V2
Delta Original
Type
Hybrid BA + 7mm Dynamic Driver
Hybrid BA + 8mm Dynamic Driver
Frequency Range
20 Hz – 20 Khz
19 Hz – 21 Khz
Impedance
16 ohm
16 ohm
Sensitivity
110 +/-3dB @ 1kHz 1mW
110 +/-3dB @ 1kHz 1mW
Cable
1.1m std + 1.15m mic enabled (replaceable)
1.1m OFC std (fixed)
Jack
3.5mm gold plated, straight jack
3.5mm gold plated, straight jack
Weight
Approx 16g with tips in place
Approx 14g with tips in place
IEM Shell
CNC polished aluminium
CNC polished aluminium
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will likely be significantly higher. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and I've included a comparison to the original Delta for reference. The graphs in this section are the Delta V2 with gold (or middle) filter with damping vs the original Delta's gunmetal filter (also damped). I'll use the gold damped to talk about the basic signature – as it probably has the best overall balance.
[size=inherit][/size]
Delta V2 frequency chart and channel matching
Delta V1 frequency chart and channel matching
Delta V2 vs Delta V1
The first time I heard the Delta V2 – I knew it was an original Delta tuning – but improved. The frequency response is almost the same, but the bass doesn't have as much decay – there is still plenty of thump, but not as much “boom”. But the magical mid-range isn't really changed, and this is what Bob has got so incredibly right.
There is definite sub-bass roll-off, but the Delta still manages to represent enough rumble to satisfy – and the real roll doesn't start until the 3-40 Hz area anyway. There is a mid-bass hump (the size of this depends on the filter you use), but this only makes the Delta V2 seem quite natural sounding (to me anyway). The mids have a little dip through 1kHz, but then have a nice gentle rise in the presence area between 2-3 kHz, and this brings both clarity and sweetness. Female vocals are a little fuller and richer than male vocals – but this is a tuning I really like. There is a lower treble peak at around 8-9 kHz, but it is a pretty benign one, and provides plenty of detail without getting too bright.
I'll go into much more detail when we reach the filter section.
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN The Delta is very similar in looks and build to the original – it just has a longer shell, and of course the detachable 2-pin cable. So starting with the body, it is once again cylindrical or cartridge shaped, approx 12mm in diameter, and made of highly polished CNC aluminium anodised with a gunmetal finish. The body is 17-18mm in length (no filter) and has a tapered front and domed rear. At the rear of the dome is a single external port.
[size=inherit][/size]
Delta V2 from the side
Delta V2 from the front
Delta V2 from opposite side
There are seven included tuning filters, and each simply screws into the front of the housing and adds 6mm to the overall length. The filters are covered with a mesh cover and the nozzle section is approx 5-6mm in diameter. It has a nice lip to hold tips securely. The Trinity logo is printed across both ear pieces in white and looks really classy. Toward the rear of the Delta V2 is a raised 2 pin socket. There is no left or right markings on either ear piece, and because of this they are interchangeable (the cable decides the designation).
[size=inherit][/size]
Delta V2 from the rear
Cable connection system
The hard to see "R" only on the cable connector
There are two cables included – the standard Trinity multi-braid cable, and a cloth covered single button remote and mic cable. My standard cable measures 1.1m in length from jack to 2-pin connectors. The connectors are really interesting because there is a plastic sheath around the two prongs so they are very well protected. This sheath goes over the connector socket mount on the IEM body, and fits very securely. The only clue about which connector is which is an L or R imprinted into the sheath jacket. Because this is black, it is very hard to see, and one of my few gripes about the Delta V2. I've actually snipped a couple of coloured IEM stems and slipped them over the sheaths so identification is a little easier. Another important note – the L or R should face the rear of the IEM. They fit both ways, but if you have it facing front they are audibly out of phase.
[size=inherit][/size]
My makeshift ID solution
Trinity standard multi-braid cable, jack and y-split
New cloth microphone cable, jack, y-split, and control unit
The strain relief at the sheath end of the cable is reasonably rigid. The Y-split is a really nice looking aluminium tube with good flexible strain relief at the bottom, and a superbly implemented cinch at the top. The jack is gold plated, with spring loaded strain relief. It is iPhone case friendly, and for those who prefer a right angled jack, Trinity include a right angle adaptor which works really well.
The standard cable is the same as the one used on most of the Trinity products and is one of the best I've used (until you get into the mega-buck boutique cables). The cable consists of 4 OFC wires – both sets of two tight woven into a spring like weave. These two weaves are then woven again together below the Y-split. The end result is an extremely flexible, and gorgeous looking cable with virtually no memory. The weave also gives it strength. So far in my testing (over-ear), cable noise is minimal – unless it comes into contact with a rough surface (zipper etc). The cable can be slightly tangle prone – but careful winding and storage solves that easily.
[size=inherit][/size]
Size comparisons to the original dDelta
Similar build, except for length
Size comparison to original Delta
The secondary cable is cloth covered, very slightly longer than the standard cable (1.15m), has a 4 pole straight jack, and this time has a combined single button control and microphone port on the left hand earpiece. The push button control is a universal standard (one-click pause/play, two click next track, three click previous track, and press and hold activates Siri for me). The control unit hangs about 4cm below my ear if worn over ear, and just below my chin if worn straight down. The microphone is pretty clear, and I had no problems being clearly understood when calling my wife. The cable also has reasonably low microphonics and virtually none when worn over ear.
Overall the build quality and attention to detail is top-notch, and the only issue I can fault is the markings on the cable connectors.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION I have one ear canal slightly different to the other one (my right is very slightly smaller) - so I tend to find that usually single silicon flanges don't fit overly well. But because of the Delta V2's shape allowing for a deeper fit, both the large single flange tips and also the dual flange both fit me like a glove. My preference was for the included foam tips which aren't Comply (Bobs ones are more durable) – and these proved to be both comfortable and seal really well. I also tried and was very successful with Sony Isolation tips, Spinfits, Ostry tuning tips, and Spiral-Dots.
[size=inherit][/size]
Spiral dots and Ostry tuning tips
Sony isolation and Spinfit tips
The Trinity dual flange and standard silicone
Isolation with the Delta V2 will depend on the seal you achieve and insertion depth, but for my larger canals and relatively deep seal I find isolation is average to above average for a hybrid containing a vented dynamic driver. With music playing you’re isolated pretty well.
Comfort for me is excellent – part of this could be because of my larger ears and canals. After a while I don't really notice I'm wearing them and despite the added length, they sit flush or slightly inside my outer ear (YMMV). I've already managed to sleep many times with the Delta V2 intact and at low volumes I've even slept pretty much through the night a couple of times.
So the new Delta V2 looks good, has a fantastic build, and is comfortable to wear. Let’s have a look at the filters, and then move onto sonic impressions.
DELTA FILTER SYSTEM The original Delta came with three exchangeable filters to allow you to tailor the sound to your preference. I've included the graph for the original Delta filters, and then the comparison with Delta V2's new 7 filter system. I've also further divided that into two section for easier discussion.
[size=inherit][/size]
All of the filters
Original Delta V1 filters (3)
New Delta V2 filters (7)
Each filter stands a little over 8mm tall, with a 7mm diameter threaded base, and 5-6mm nozzle. The filter screws easily into the main body of the Delta V2, and can be replaced for different tuning. Most of the filters have a very small tuning vent located toward and just above the threaded section. Half of the filters also have a damping membrane. The vents control the bass quantity. The damping controls the upper mid-range. Together they give 7 very different options, and should have something to cater to most tastes and preferences.
The silver filter has no vent and has the maximum bass, next comes gold and finally purple. Each of these without damping has the usual mid-range rise, but this extends further and has a secondary peak between 4-5 kHz. So the undamped filters tend to be brighter and crisper, and for the silver – and gold, quite V shaped. For a summary of where each filter sits -
Silver undamped – has the most bass (especially sub-bass) , and also emphasised clarity. This one is really the V shaped or “fun filter” (silver on the “all graph”)
Silver damped - has slightly less bass but still second most impact. Highs are softened, sot his one is quite warm, bassy and smooth (blue on the “all graph”)
Gunmetal damped – is the only one without a partner and is actually quite close overall to the yellow damped filter – but with a touch more bass (red on the “all graph”)
Gold undamped – has quite a bit less bass than the silver, is quite a lot more balanced, and will be favoured by people who like a lot of clarity with tight, fast but still present bass (gold on the “all graph”)
Gold damped – has exactly same bass as the undamped version, but without the heat in the upper mids and lower treble. It is quite balanced and sounds very natural overall (yellow on the “all graph”)
Purple undamped – has the flattest bass of all the filters, but combined with the upper mid and lower treble emphasis delivers a very crisp, very clean signature that acoustic lovers may very well appreciate. In a lot of ways it reminds me of the DUNU Titan T3. (dark purple on the “all graph”)
Purple damped – virtually the same bass as the undamped, but again without the heat in the upper mids and lower treble. This is possibly the most balanced of all the filters and the closest to reference level (light purple on the “all graph”)
The spare filters are housed in the now familiar little aluminium tube with the screw on cap. This is brilliant as the tube fits neatly in the case so that your filters are always with you – and the tube should be big enough so that it won’t get easily lost. There is only one included though - but should be sufficient as I'd imagine most people will have their favourite fitted and another one or two handy for alternate tunings.
[size=inherit][/size]
Undamped filters
Undamped left, damped right
Damped filters
My favourite of the filters are the damped gold and damped purple. The gold is more natural sounding, but the purple is addictive for its clarity without going over the top. The one thing the Delta V2 does better than any other tunable (via filters) IEM I've tried is give real options for changing the signature- rather than just enhancing or decreasing the bass. In this regard, for my tastes, it actually bests both the Sabre and the Atlas for tunability options.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the Trinity Delta V2. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X3ii + E17K as source, the gold damped filter in place, and Bob's included foam tips.
For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the E17K was around 17-19/60 (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-70 dB (with peaks around 75 dB). Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Thoughts on General Signature The sound signature with the gold damped filters is very close to that of the original Delta. It is smooth and easy to listen to, while at the same time having very good overall resolution. Bass (especially mid-bass is slightly elevated, but it isn't as boomy as the original Delta. Lower mids are a little on the lean side, and there is a natural progression through the upper mids with female vocals being emphasised a little more. For those who've had Trinity products before you will recognise their “house sound”.
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used: Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
Good overall balance with noticeable mid-bass hump (this can be flattened with other filters)
Good detail retrieval but subdued a little with the damped filters – can be emphasised with the undamped. Cymbals still have reasonable presence with the damped filter but they sit in the background just a little
Guitar has extremely good edge and sounds quite natural
Vocals in both tracks are nicely presented in contrast to the rest of the track, but marginally leaner in the mix.
Sound-stage, Imaging, and Sibilance Test Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
Precise directional cues, but just outside the periphery of my head space – so average width and depth
Good spherically presented stage – not too wide or lacking depth
Imaging is very clean and clear and good separation of instruments without being too clinical.
Very good contrast between vocals, piano and cello with Dante's Prayer. Loreena's vocals are amazing with the Delta V2.
Really good immersion (applause section of Dante's Prayer) with impression that crowd is around you (you are sitting right in it). This continued with the holographic presentation of “Let It Rain”. One of the better IEM presentations of both tracks.
Sibilance is present in “Let It Rain” - I know it exists in the recording. However it isn't overly emphasised, and for me is very tolerable.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Really good mid-bass impact and good portrayal of the overall dark mood. Mark's vocals have good presentation of timbre, and texture (Mark's vocals in “Muddy Waters”) - but tonally slightly leaner than I am used to.
Average to good speed and bass resolution – still good impact, and not too boomy.
No signs of bass bleed into the mid-range
Surprisingly good sub-bass for rumble (“Royals”) but not over-done. Can be lifted by moving to the silver filter.
Good separation between mid-bass impact and vocals (“Royals”) - clean presentation.
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake me Up, Ship To Wreck.
Wonderful transition from lower-mids to upper-mids – this is one of the strengths of the Delta V2
Nicely euphonic presentation with good air and a definite touch of sweetness to female vocals
Extremely good contrast between vocals and lower pitch of instruments like cello
No signs of stridency with Aventine and Strong
Really good bass impact with music with highly dynamic content (Feist, FaTM) – contrast between bass and vocals is excellent
Superb with slower female vocals and especially with artists like Gabriella Cilmi, Norah Jones and Sarah Jarosz. As good a tuning as I have heard for female vocalists.
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Male vocals are just a little thinner, but still very enjoyable. They also feel as if they have just a little distance.
Bass presence is impactful and dynamic, and there is good contrast with lead guitar.
Excellent portrayal of classic rock artists like 10CC and Jethro Tull. Mix of detail and tonality is very good.
Brilliant with acoustic tracks – especially Eagle's Hotel California. Genuine sense of space in the live track too
Couldn't stop tapping my toes with Green Day's track – the dynamic contrast really is very good. A little more intimate with this track, but brilliantly balanced.
Good overall presentation of timbre and tone with Pearl Jam – texture on Eddie's vocals was there but slightly distant. Good but not the best I've heard. Cymbal decay was excellent in this track.
Genre Specific Notes
Really good with most forms of Rock and Alt Rock – especially Porcupine Tree and Floyd – presentation of detail in Money was very good, and the vocal presentation especially.
Really good with Blues and Jazz although on some tracks I'd be tempted to slip one of the undamped filters in place if I was planning a real Jazz session (just for some extra emphasis on cymbals). Sax was smooth and thoroughly enjoyable. Purple damped or gold undamped would probably be my choice with these genres.
EDM, Hip-hop and Trance were really good with just the gold filters – but for those wanting a lot more thump, the silver filters definitely take it to another level. You might sacrifice just a little speed for the impact though. Trance – especially with female backing vocals – was marvellous, and I'm really enjoying some Trip-Hop with the likes of Little Dragon.
Pop was very good, and the added mid-bass for the likes of Coldplay suited the slightly rough recording quality. The upper mid-range emphasis also seems to suit this type of genre, and especially so with Adele.
Indie was heavenly. Once again, it seems to be the combination of slightly lifted mid-bass, slightly recessed 1-2 kHz range, and then the lift in upper-mids that really seems to deliver a lot of cohesion. Band of Horses was dynamic and thoroughly enjoyable, but Wildlight's “Dawn to Flight” was the outstanding track of the whole review. There are no words to describe how beautifully the Delta V2 renders this track. Perfection.
Classical was really good, but I'd probably keep the golds for anything with a lot of cello or piano based, and switch to purple for orchestral pieces. Netrebko and Garanca's rendition of Lakme's Flower Duet was another high moment with great tonality as well as sense of space.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The Delta is easily powered straight out of the headphone-out socket of the portable devices I have, and I haven’t experienced any issues with the iPhone 5S, or any of the FiiO DAPs. With typical pop/rock songs on the iP5S I’m usually at a volume level of around 25-35%, on the X3ii around 30-40/120. Again, I did try amping with the E17K, but noticed no obvious signs of improvement. I also used the IMS Hybrid Valve Amp with the purple undamped filter and that was a really nice tonal combination – but I couldn't say that the Delta V2 either benefits from or needs additional amplification.
EQUALISATION IMO the Delta V2 does not need it, and that is what the filters are for anyway. But in the interests of trying to see the effects, I used the X7 and played around with taking some mid-bass out whilst keeping some sub-bass more present and the result wasn't too shabby. For those who prefer not to EQ though, you'll love the filter choices.
COMPARISONS This section is always a difficult one to try to work out as to which comparisons would be most useful. I tried to pick IEMs which are similar and in the same price bracket – but also thought it would be a good idea to compare to the original Delta (now discontinued), and also a higher end tunable IEM in the FCL8S.
All of these comparisons are very subjective – and influenced by my own preference, physiology and bias. Comparison was once again with the X3ii + E17K, and the Delta V2 had the gold damped filters. All IEMs were volume matched with a 1 kHz tone and using a proper SPL meter.
Delta V2 (~$145) vs Delta V1 (No longer available)
Delta V1 vs Delta V2
Frequency graph (comparative)
Sonically they are very close. Delta V2 has less boomy bass, and more filter options. It is slightly larger, but both have the exceptional build, and now the new model also has the detachable cables + mic cable. Is it worth getting V2 if you like/own the V1? – IMO absolutely.
Delta V2 (~$145) vs Fidue A73 ($149)
[size=inherit][/size]
Delta V2 vs Fidue A73
Frequency graph (comparative)
This is an interesting one - as both are dual hybrids, and both are in the same price band. The A73 has the more ergonomic fit, but the Delta V2 has the better build, better cable, and the cables are replaceable. Delta V2 also has the 7 different tuning options. Both earphones have similar bass and mid-ranges (on the graphs), but the difference in mid-range elevation of the A73 gives it a thicker and richer sound, and also the bass sounds a lot boomier and warmer overall. The Delta V2 sounds leaner and also a lot cleaner. The A73 also has a much sharper peak in the lower treble which can make it sound reasonably hot in this area (for me it can be sibilant). This will come down to sonic preference as the two are quite different – but for me the cleaner sonic signature and tuning options very definitely put the Delta V2 a long way ahead.
Delta V2 (~$145) vs DUNU DN-1000 ($159)
[size=inherit][/size]
Delta V2 vs
DUNU DN-1000
Frequency graph (comparative)
The DN-1000 was DUNU's first triple driver hybrid and it was a real game changer on its release. Both earphones have excellent build quality, with the Delta V2 ultimately getting the nod with its superior cabling, and of course the ability to change filters. The Delta also manages a little more comfort than the shorter DUNU, but really there isn't a lot in it. Sonically the DN-1000 has similar bass, but more sub-bass, and when coupled with its comparatively flatter mid-range it sounds warmer and fuller (more body). I definitely prefer the clearer and sweeter tonality of the Delta V2.
Delta V2 (~$145) vs Trinity Sabre ($110 on promo, normally $185)
[size=inherit][/size]
Delta V2 vs Trinity Sabre
Delta V2 all filters
Sabre all filters
The Sabre is one of Trinity's new Phantom range and is a dual dynamic driver earphone in a push pull configuration. In terms of build, you couldn't pick a winner – both have Trinity's excellent finish and attention to detail. Both also feature the new two pin replaceable cable system. For comfort, I would say that the Sabre are slightly more comfortable being a little more ergonomic. In terms of tuning filters, the Delta V2 has 7 filters whilst the Sabre has 5, but in two different lengths. I've shown graphs for both so you can see the different tuning options. Delta V2 is definitely more configurable and has a lot more options to change signature – where Sabre's is more confined to differences in the bass. Sonically whilst I can get closer to the Sabres tuning with the undamped filters, the bass in both is very similar, with the Delta V2 feeling like it has marginally more impact, but the Sabre having the overall bolder and more vibrant signature. My actual preference here (personally) is till with the Delta V2 – simply because its signature is more in line with my personal tastes.
Delta V2 (~$145) vs FCL8S ($299)
Delta V2 vs FCL8S
Frequency graph (comparative)
This will seem like a miss-match with the FCL8S triple driver hybrid being double the price, but I thought it pertinent given the Delta V2 is one of the best and most configurable IEMs I've come across with tuning nozzles, and the FCL8S is probably the most configurable IEM on the market today with more than 36 different tuning tweaks available. For overall build quality, I'd definitely go with the Delta's CNC aluminium and far superior cable over the FCL8S polished plastic shell and unwieldy cable. For fit, the ergonomic shape of the FCL8S is definitely more comfortable. The FCL8S has far more tuning options and the ability to tweak to your heart's content, so with this comparison I went with black, none, gold vs the Delta's gold damped.
Bass is flatter and more extended on the FCL8S with the configuration, and I have to admit I love being able to tweak the bass to my liking with the FCL8S. The bass is close enough between the two to leave to individual preference. Both have similar texture and overall quality – but the added extension of the FCL8S will definitely be appealing to many. The mid-range presentations are very different with the FCL8S having a bump between 1-2 kHz compared to the Delta's 2-3 kHz rise. This gives the FCL8S a very intimate and up front presentation of vocals, and I know a lot of people really like this approach – but I find it fatiguing after a while, and prefer the extra space the Delta provides. Lower treble can be manipulated by both headphones using the filter systems. Ultimately it will come down again to preference – and for me as not a huge fan of the 1-2 kHz bump – I'll pick the Delta. But the one thing that is clear from A/Bing both earphones is that they are both wonderful examples of how far audio has come in the last 5-10 years. Both are quality products and each have their unique place at the moment.
DELTA V2 - SUMMARY
The Trinity Delta V2 is the best tuned dual driver hybrid earphone I’ve heard to date, and it definitely isn't embarrassed when comparing to triple drive hybrid earphones in its own, and higher priced brackets. The build is typical Trinity with precision machined aluminium shells, a fantastic cable, and a really configurable filter system which IMO is superior to any other nozzle based filter system I've tried. Fit will be dependent on your canal size (those with smaller ears may have issues), but for me personally it is very comfortable for long term listening.
Sonically you can change from a V shaped fun signature to a quite balanced / natural tonality, or even a flatter reference sound simply by changing the filters, and there should be something for most tastes with 7 different options available
The new Delta V2 is an easy recommendation from me because at this price point, and for this quality, you really are getting a wonderful earphone system – one capable of besting earphones at much higher prices. It is an improvement in every way over the original without losing the original tonality which made the original Delta such a well regarded earphone on its release.
Any nitpicks I have are minor, and considering what you get for the price, I can't give this anything but 5 stars.
@Brooko i'm also aiming for balance and clarity, but with just a bit more impact & presence on bass, since the filters on delta v2 can be changed, maybe it can satisfy my need for a stronger bass while having a clear & balanced sound altogether . i'll try out your recommendations along with the delta v2 to see which one meets my needs. thanks!
Also if you don't mind an out of topic question, my L3's firmware is very very buggy(shuts down on sleep mode before the 45 min. mark & upon powering up resets some or all settings etc..) its 1.0.0.5 out of the box, upon checking their site the latest is 1.0.0.4. do you happen to know a representative or someone familiar on luxury & precision products here?
Pros: Sound quality, tonal coherence, clarity and resolution, build quality, accessories, design features (cable, cinch, cable tie etc)
Cons: Comfort if worn cable up, lack of lip on nozzle, connector band around shell has raised hard ridges (comfort)
For larger views of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
[size=24.57px]INTRODUCTION[/size]
I've had the pleasure of listening to most of DUNU Topsound's hybrid earphones (DN1000, 2000 and 2000J), and also their Titan series (1, 3 and 5), and the thing that has always struck me with DUNU has been the quality of their products, and the innovation in their design. So when Vivian first started talking about producing a multi-driver hybrid statement line (2002, 3001 and 4001), I was naturally curious. So far I've really liked most of their products, and this has been especially so with the 2000J, Titan1 and 5 – which are still favourites, and which I still rate extremely highly. So the fascination with the model I'm reviewing today was because I was intrigued – would the 2002 be modelled on the 2000, 2000J or something new? Read on to find my thoughts.
ABOUT DUNU-TOPSOUND I’ve used this before in my other reviews – and I think it serves as a good reminder of who DUNU is, and where they come from.
DUNU Topsound was established in 1994 originally as an OEM supplier to other companies. Since then they have developed their own branded line of high quality earphones, and gone from strength to strength (IMO) with each release. They currently have their manufacturing plant in China and head office in Taiwan. They now have more than 100 employees, and market their product range all over the world.
The name DUNU is simply an acronym of the principle design points that the company strives to implement in their product range Delicate UNique Utmost
Here is a quote from their website, which really does give an insight into what drives the company:
“With advanced technology and hi-end equipments, DUNU desires to be able to provide Delicate, Unique ＆ Utmost products for Hi-Fi embracers. Delicate means extremely quality demanding on product process, from every little component to product manufacturing. DUNU has complete production line and equipments, including precise equipments, B&K frequency machine, IMD sputter, CNC machine, anechoic room, etc. Concerning design of product, DUNU also devotes to create unique outer appearance and balance in all sound frequency.
Utmost is not only the expectation on products, but also the pursuit of an Earphone Manufacturer. The founder of DUNU, himself, has years of experience in OEM/ODM earphone products in which many worldwide famous earphone Brands are included. However, in order to create the most enjoyable earphone on his own, DUNU’s president establishes the brand “DUNU” and implants many hi-end equipments and hires talented employees. From then on, DUNU takes the lead in developing the first Chinese made metal earphone, developing 5.8mm Driver unit and produce the very first Chinese Balance Armature Earphone, in 2014 DUNU release China first triple driver Dynamic and Balance Armature Hybrid earphone, All these preparations are to step on the world stage and to challenge renowned earphone brands. The ultimate goal of DUNU is to provide worldwide HI-FI embracers our Delicate, Unique & Utmost earphone products.”
DUNU’s full product catalogue can be found here - and their products are supplied through their own store front (globally) on Amazon.
DISCLAIMER The DN-2002 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to DUNU that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the DN-2002 for follow up comparisons. I do not make any financial gain from this review – it is has been written simply as my way of providing feedback both to the Head-Fi community and also DUNU themselves.
I have now had the DUNU-2002 since late April. The retail price at time of review is USD 375.00, and can be purchased via Amazon.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. (or a base-line for interpreting my thoughts and bias)
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
For the purposes of this review - I used the DUNU DN-2002 straight from the headphone-out socket of most of my portables, and also from the FiiO E17K when at work. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my E17K, E11K, IMS HVA and iDSD), as IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification (YMMV and it may depend on your source). In the time I have spent with the DN-2002, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in) over close to 30 hours.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The DUNU DN-2002 arrived in an approximately 142mm x 177mm x 56mm retail box. The retail packaging consists of a printed sleeve over a book style reinforced board box. The sleeve carries virtually all exterior print, is printed in matt black, with white and red text. On the front is the DUNU logo, the “Hi-Res” certified logo, a high res picture of the DN2002, and a little information on the earphones (which I won't repeat now as we'll go into more detail below). The rear of the sleeve has accessory and specification information, as well as a frequency graph.
[size=inherit][/size]
Front of the sleeve
Rear of the sleeve
Inner box
The inner box has a coarse textured black outer surface, and simply the word “DUNU” on the top cover. Opening this reveals the DN-2002 nestled safely in a foam holder, and a black pelican style case.
The carry case is different from the original 2 piece aluminium one from the 2000 and 2000J. The outer dimensions are almost the same, and come to just under 120 x 85 x 40mm externally (including lip, clasp and hinges, but inside gives up a little space, and is actually smaller than the original 2000 series aluminium case. This one is a hard gloss plastic outer, but with good interior protection from a rigid rubber base and foam in the lid. It has more than enough room for the 2002 with some space for accessories and is pretty well built for protection. Because of the size of the carry case, it isn’t really pocket-able (trousers or jeans), but it would be ideal for a bag or casual jacket pocket. I might be a bit strange – but I'm actually liking this case better (hinged lid, less likely to show scratches)
[size=inherit][/size]
Inside the cover
Case, DN-2002 and warranty sheet
Case is perfect size
The actual range of accessories is well thought out and includes:
Because people may want to compare – I've also included the specifications from DUNU's DN-2000 and DN-2000J earphones.
Model
DN-2002
DN-2000J
DN-2000
Type
Quad driver hybrid IEM
Triple driver hybrid IEM
Triple driver hybrid IEM
Driver - Dynamic
2 x 10mm titanium DD
1 x 10mm titanium DD
1 x 10mm DD
Driver - BA
1 x Knowles dual BA (2 BA)
1 x Knowles dual BA (2 BA)
1 x Knowles dual BA (2 BA)
Freq Range
10Hz – 40 kHz
4Hz - 40kHz
10Hz – 30 kHz
Impedance
10Ω
8Ω
16Ω
Sensitivity
106 ±2dB
112 ±2dB
102 ±2dB
Cable
1.2m, replaceable (MMCX)
1.2m, fixed
1.2m, fixed
Jack
3.5mm gold plated, 90 deg
3.5mm gold plated, 90 deg
3.5mm gold plated, 90 deg
Weight
24g
21.8g
22g
IEM Shell
Hockey stick/cartridge style
Cartridge style
Cartridge style
Casing
316L Stainless Steel
303F Stainless Steel
303F Stainless Steel
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will likely be significantly higher. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and I've included a scan of DUNU's graph from the packaging also for comparison. I've also compared the 2000 and 2000J on my same equipment – and this should give a basis for comparative assessment.
[size=inherit][/size]
The DUNU DN-2002
The DN-2000
The DN-2000J
You will notice an imbalance in the channels of the review sample I have. This should not be taken as a typical sign of DUNU's QC, nor do I think it actually affected the review too much. To be honest I would not have noticed it unless listening to tones or a mono track. With music it simply sounds like a normal stereo mix. And I often receive samples with some channel imbalance from other manufacturers – it is simply one of those things. I've included the channel comparisons for the 2000 and 2000J to illustrate what you should expect (in confidence) when purchasing from DUNU.
My sonic impressions of the 2002 – written well before I measured:
More akin to the DN-2000 than the DN-2000J
Overall balanced but warmish sounding, and subdued in the upper end
Subjectively good tonal balance overall – nice coherency from lows to highs
Clean and clear sound but lacking some crispness I have been used to with other DUNU products (some may see this as a good thing)
BUILD The DUNU DN-2002, like the entire range of DUNU products I’ve reviewed previously, is incredibly well built and finished. The outer shell is two tone (black and silver) and utilises 315 stainless steel which DUNU says reduces sound vibrations. The actual body is similar to the rest of the DN series in that the main shell is a “cartridge” style (cylindrical). The diameter is approximately 12mm and the main shell length is approx 15mm deep. With the addition of the 8mm nozzle length, this gives an overall length front to back of 23mm (so sizeably longer than the rest of the DM series. One of the things I like about the shell is that DUNU have rounded the front edges, which is a welcome change from the harder edges on the 1000,2000 and 2000J. The nozzle is 6mm in diameter, has no lip (for tip retention) and has mesh protection for the nozzle. Its 8mm length is tiered in two stages so that the lightly thicker stage stops tips coming right up to the base – and in this section is a very tiny ventilation hole.
[size=inherit][/size]
Lipless nozzle and view from front if worn over ear
View from side
View from rear
The rear of the shell is finished in matt black, has the DUNU name on the flat section at the rear, along with a 2nd ventilation port. The rear section also houses a vertical arm which is the connector apparatus for the MMCX replaceable cable system. This sits alongside and perpendicular to the main housing, and is basically a 7mm diameter cylinder with a length of approx 16mm. Please note the "strap" which sits around this and seems to connect it to the main shell - it has raised edges is one of my comfort issues I'll mention later in the review. The connection system is proprietary and standard MMCX cables from other companies will not fit – this actually includes the cables from DUNUs own Triton series (which is a little strange). One of the nice things with the arms is that DUNU have put a red coloured ring on the right side – so you always know which earpieces is which. The male connectors also have a small notch (which matches the socket) so the cables only fit one way, and this should reduce spinning and hopefully loose connections. The connectors themselves are very tightly fit (requires some force to remove), and can also be swapped from right to left. The right male connector has an % on the hard rubber housing and the left has a raised dot.
[size=inherit][/size]
Right hand ear piece - rear logo
The new cable attachment
MMCX connector - note notches to stop rotation
The cable has a very satiny smooth PVC outer sheath which exhibits very low micro-phonics (none when worn cable over-ear), and which just doesn’t seem to tangle. Like the 2000J, they have retained the four separate cores – so re-terminating to balanced should be a simple matter of simply changing and re-soldering the jack. The Y split is rigid, metal, sturdy and very practical. Dunu’s design choice with the Y split is one I’ve always liked. There is enough weight in it to keep the cable pulling down slightly, but yet it’s not overly heavy or bulky. The top section of it also detaches to become the chin slider. The design is simple, elegant, and works incredibly well. There is ample strain relief at the southern end of the Y split, and the 1.2m cable terminates at a right angled, very well built jack – gold plated, and with excellent strain relief. If I had one small question about the cable it would be that there is no real strain relief at the male MMCX connector section. Unfortunately only time will tell if this could be an issue
[size=inherit][/size]
Jack and cable tie
Y split and cinch
The fantastic "on-cable" tie in place
The other brilliant design element in the cable is the inclusion of the 'on-cable' cinch (or rubber cable tidy) – the same as used on most of their releases now. This is a really simple mechanism that is unobtrusive - but means that whenever it's time to store the IEMs, the cable is always tidily looped. This remains one of the most simple, yet practical, methods of cable ties I have ever seen. I can’t really fault the overall build quality. Unfortunately I can't quite say the same about overall design – especially when it comes to fit and comfort.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation is dependent on tip selection, and if you get a good seal, it is actually pretty good (above average for a hybrid IMO), but will not ultimately reach the high isolation of sealed BA IEMs. It would still be reasonably good for a busy street, or some forms of public transport though – although wouldn't be my personal choice for long haul flights.
Now we get to fit – and these thoughts are more subjective. As I said above, the DN-2002 has a vertical cylinder for housing the connectors, and this sits adjacent to the main shell. Because of the design, you can easily wear the 2002 cable up or down, and connection cylinder to the rear of the external ear or the front (simply by swapping earpieces). So you essentially get 2 fitting choices up and 2 down. You can also angle the arms forward for more options.
[size=inherit][/size]
Examples of design vs other models
Fidue A83, DN-2002, Oriveti Primacy, MEE Pinnacle P1
Unfortunately for me, comfort is not the best
My preferred wearing position is always over ear. If I swap earpieces, and move the connectors to the front, the connector cylinders are hard up against my tragus, and I cannot get a deep insertion without comfort issues. If I wear the cylinders to the back, the bottom of the cylinder hits inside my antitragus and causes long term discomfort that way. Also the overall girth of the body is such that (like the original DN-2000) it is always pressing unnaturally against some part of my ear. I can get used to it, but the fit is always noticeable, and in an era where other companies are able to get ergonomically designed multi-driver earphones to conform to the ear, I simply can't help but feel that DUNU really missed the boat on this one. You could have the best sounding earphone in the world, but if ultimately it isn't comfortable, then you won't wear it – or at least I won't. And unfortunately for me – the 2002 suffers from long-term comfort. I've spoken to Vivian about this, and she says that no-one else is really talking about comfort problems with the design (especially in China) – so maybe this is a “Brooko” issue. Unfortunately it is also a very real issue for me – and I can't help but think that it is something the design team should at least look at. Our ears are soft, rounded, and pliable and they do not like hard edges (at least mine don't). I also tried the ear-hooks in an endeavour to see if it would help fit. I found them quite frustrating, and gave up after about 10 minutes – the issue isn't with the cable wrapping around – it is with the housing.
Worn cable down, comfort is not too bad
My preferred cable over-ear is uncomfortable for me
If you wear cable down - with the connector "barrel" at the very front of the IEM, then the comfort issues pretty much disappear, and this is probably how DUNU have tested them and most people are wearing them. My issue with this is that (a) it introduces some microphonics, and (b) because the housing and nozzles are straight (not angled) the fit is pretty shallow. If it works for you this way though, then your experience will be a lot different to mine.
One thing which I do think is contributing to the discomfort is the actual metal strap which goes around the connector and secures the connecter housing to the main housing. This has a slight ridge (is not smooth) and this also contributes to the discomfort. Hard edges and soft ears do not mix DUNU!
[size=inherit][/size]
Comply foam and included silicone
Spinfit and Ostry
Tips that wouldn't stay intact - my Sony Isolation and Spiral Dots
Another little gripe and this isn't a huge one because ultimately large Comply tips do the trick, but the lack of lip on the nozzle means that some tips I like to have options with simply can't be used (e.g. spiral dots). The smooth nozzle means that slightly looser bores won't hold and this limits my options. In this case, there are no tuning filters – so I really can't see why this is missing. Anyway – it's slightly annoying – but alleviated that there are fortunately a number of tips that do work. I tried and get successful seals with Ostry tuning tips, the included Spinfits and also the Comply tips. Ultimately I ended up going with foam for the best comfort and seal.
Either worn over ear, or cable down, the DN-2002 do not fit flush with my outer ear, and are uncomfortable to lie down with. The one time I managed to fall asleep with them intact I ended up waking after an hour with very sore ears and a vow never to do try it again.
So where the build is brilliant, unfortunately for me the design is not practical (for my over ear preferences) and – most importantly – could be drastically improved. This is one issue that DUNU should definitely look at in the future.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the DUNU DN-2002. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X3ii and E17K as source, no EQ, and Comply foam tips with the cable worn over ear. I used the X3ii and E17K simply because paired they give me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. With the X3ii, replay gain was off, and the fixed line-out setting was default. For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the E17K was around 17-19/60 (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Thoughts on General Signature When I first listened to the DN-2002, the first impression was of a really nice balance, good detail, and very smooth and easy to listen to signature. This hasn't really changed in the time I've had them. If describing in a few key phrases, I'd describe them as smooth and balanced, with good bass response, and slightly subdued upper end. One of the things I've enjoyed with them so far is that they have such an easy going nature – but still allow good levels of detail texture and timbre through. In fact if it wasn't for the fit, these would be the ideal IEMs to simply relax with.
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used: Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
Good balance with slightly noticeable rise in the mid-bass
Very good detail retrieval and although it is more overt than in your face, nothing appears to be missing
Cymbals have reasonable presence and extremely good decay (they sit in the background just a little)
Guitar has very good edge and sounds very realistic
Very good resolution overall and surprises considering how smooth it is.
Vocals in both tracks are nicely balanced
Sound-stage, Imaging, and Sibilance Test Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
Very good directional cues, but just at the periphery of my head space – so not extremely wide or deep sounding (more intimate)
Nicely rounded stage (which I find more important than expansiveness)
Precise imaging which is very clear – not diffuse at all.
Separation of instruments is above average – and again surprising clarity given the smoothness.
Great contrast between vocals, piano and cello with Dante's Prayer.
Immersion is very good (applause section of Dante's Prayer) with impression that crowd is around you. This is continued with the holographic presentation of “Let It Rain”
Overall I would all the staging as realistic and slightly intimate rather than expansive.
Sibilance is masked quite a bit in “Let It Rain” - hardly present for me, although I know it exists in the recording
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Very good mid-bass impact and good portrayal of timbre, tone and texture (Mark's vocals in “Muddy Waters”)
Good speed and bass resolution – this is quality bass rather than simply quantity
No signs of bass bleed into the mid-range
Enough sub-bass for rumble (“Royals”) but not over emphasised. I quite like this presentation actually – again it sounds very much like bass done right (natural rather than emphasised)
Very good separation between mid-bass thump and vocals (“Royals”)
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake me Up, Ship To Wreck.
Good transition from lower-mids to upper-mids – sounds quite natural
Slightly euphonic presentation with reasonable air and a slight touch of sweetness to female vocals (much less than 2000J)
Fantastic contrast between vocals and lower pitch of instruments like cello
Very slight stridency with Aventine and Strong, but doesn't degrade at all with lower listening volumes
Extremely good with music with highly dynamic content (Feist, FaTM) – contrast between bass and vocals is excellent
Gabriella Cilmi gave me chills – always a good sign from the point of view of realism and tonality.
Plays all my female vocalists extremely well – definite tick for female vocals
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Again, really good portrayal of dynamic slam from the bass without overshadowing anything.
Great presence with lead guitar and excellent harmony with lower vocals (very full)
Male vocals and fem,ale vocals have very similar sense of staging or distance – nice balance.
Vocals sound quite realistic – rich and full
Excellent portrayal of classic rock artists like 10CC and Jethro tull. Mix of detail and tonality is very good.
Brilliant with acoustic tracks – especially Eagle's Hotel California
Wonderful presentation of timbre and tone with Pearl Jam – texture on Eddie's vocals was practically perfect.
Genre Specific Notes
Excellent with most forms of Rock, and stunning with Alt Rock too – especially Porcupine Tree and Floyd – Wilson's vocals are amazing. Constantly surprised how they manage so much detail but retain their smoothness.
Wonderful with Blues and Jazz although at times I would have liked just a little more upper end to highlight some spectacular cymbal work I have in some recordings. Great with brass. Bonamassa's guitar work and vocals were wonderful.
Good bass impact – but not earth shaking (for the likes of Hip-hop or EDM lovers who might look for enhanced quantity). Quality is excellent though and I'm enjoying the 2002 with all forms of EDM, Hip-hop and Trance.
Pop was brilliant and the smoothness can help even out some of those peaky recordings (Adele) which can sometimes get slightly shouty in the upper mids. No lack of resolution though which is good. Indie was brilliant and again the same ability to soften some recording issues with lower treble whilst retaining the overall tonality is one the 2002's strengths IMO. Wildlight's “Dawn to Flight” was fantastic – absolutely sublime tonality.
Classical on the whole was really good – stand-outs being solo piano and solo cello. Lacked a little overall depth with full orchestra and there are times I would have preferred a little more expansiveness.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The DN-2002 doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – but because of its relatively low impedance, if you have a source with an output impedance of anything over 1 ohm, you may want to consider an amp to correct the output impedance mismatch. All of my sources are pretty low OI and I had no issues with tonality changes.
With my iPhone 5S around 30-35% volume is more than enough with most tracks, and the FiiOs are generally at around 30/120. I did try the DN-2002 with the E11K, E17K, and IMS Hybrid Valve but none of them seemed to be adding anything to my listening set-up other than some extra bulk. I actually found the HVA to be a little too warm, but did enjoy the E17K with the X3ii (read why below).
RESPONSE TO EQ? The DN-2002 is a very cohesive sounding IEM which doesn't really require EQ, but if you find the easy going relaxed tonality a bit much, and would like a bit more upper end, the X3ii + E17K is a really good way to achieve this. I simply set treble to +4 and revisited my female vocals. For my tastes this was an improvement, and the DN-2002 seems to respond well.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS These comparisons were all done with the X3ii, E17K (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. Here are my very subjective thoughts:
[size=inherit][/size]
DN-2002 vs DN-2000
Comparison of all the DN-2xxx series
DN-2002 vs DN-2000J
DN-2002 (USD 375) vs DUNU-2000 (USD 259) Build quality including girth on the housings is quite similar. For comfort – because of my own physiology, I have to give the nod to the DN-2000 as slightly better fitting – although to be fair neither would be what I would call comfortable. Both are very similar sounding IEMs with the DN-2000 having better bass extension (more sub-bass) and a little more presence in the lower treble. Both are clear and smooth and able to give very good resolution and tonality. My personal preference here is actually for the DN-2000, but it really is because of overall fit and also sonic preference.
DN-2002 (USD 375) vs DUNU-2000J (USD 288) The 2000J has similar overall build characteristics as far as quality goes, but this time there is a difference in the size of the housings (2000J is slightly smaller) and the relief is palpable. The 2000J is a lot more comfortable for me. This time there is a bit more change in overall tonality with the 2000J having a lot more upper mid-range and lower treble presence. The 2000J also has marginally more bass presence (a similar bass profile though) – yet the 2002 sounds warmer and smoother due to it's more subdued mid-range and treble. Undoubtedly the 2002 sounds the more tonally correct and balanced earphone overall – but it doesn't stop me appreciating the characteristics of the 2000J (I love its unabashed clarity and brighter presentation). This will come down to preference.
DN-2002 (USD 375) vs ORIVETI PRIMACY (USD 299)
DN-2002 vs Oriveti Primacy
Comparative freq graph
Build quality overall is of a similar standard, but where the Primacy stands out is with its very ergonomic form factor and nicely rounded edges. It literally disappears when worn and there really is no competition in this area – the Primacy is simply superior. Sonically the two are similar up to a point with the 2002 offering more balanced and natural sounding tonality, where the triple hybrid Primacy has more sub-bass extension (and this is quite noticeable), a real peak in the vocal presence area and a large peak in the lower treble. The Primacy sounds comparably more intimate, very clear in vocals, and it's one fault is that it can at times become a little fatiguing to me. Overall I like the 2002's tonality but the Primacy's form factor and comfort.
DN-2002 (USD 375) vs JAYS q-JAYS (USD 279-299)
[size=inherit][/size]
DN-2002 vs Jays q-Jays
Comparative freq graph
Once again both IEMs are phenomenally built, and once again the 2002 is soundly beaten in fit and comfort. The q-Jays are a dual BA (no dynamics) so this obviously aids fir and comfort. Sonically the two are somewhat similar although the 2002 sounds a little smoother, more natural, and a little warmer. The q-Jays seem quicker, cleaner, and slightly leaner – but they also have a lower treble peak which is very apparent when doing A/B comparisons. Of the two, the 2002 does sound tonally more natural. This one will come down to preference – but the q-Jays really suit my own tastes and for me the comfort and form factor would win out as well.
DUNU DN-2002 – SUMMARY
There is an awful lot to like about the 2002, and this is especially so with its sonic ability. It has a realistic natural tonality about it which is smooth yet lacks no detail or resolution. The balance between bass, mid-range and treble is very cohesive, and I could find no real faults with it. For my own personal preference I would have liked perhaps a touch more upper mid-range and also lower treble – but that is easily fixed with EQ. Bass is quick and well textured, and the overall transition from lower to upper mids is seamless. The overall tuning and balance is the DN-2002's strongest point.
The build and accessory package is typical DUNU – very good quality, and not really skimping on anything which should be required for the overall package. But where I do have problems is the form factor and overall fit. I think DUNU would have been much better to try shells which are much more ergonomic, and I fear if they don't start looking in this direction for future releases, they are ultimately going to be overtaken by other companies. One only has to look at the likes of the Primacy from Oriveti, or Pinnacle P1 from MEE to see where the market is heading. And DUNU have always been one of the great innovators – so I do hope they take this critique on-board. If you naturally tend to use IEMs cable down though, and can manage a good seal, the DN-2002 become more than just viable, and I suspect you'll find very little fault with them. Unfortunately for me - I am pretty much an over-ear user. One thing DUNU should fix regardless is the "strap" holding the "connector" housing to the main shell. This has raised edges - and these simply do not go well with soft ears. A definite design fault and one which should not have passed the original testing phase.
The RRP looks to be USD 375 and at this price the DN-2002 is not a cheap IEM. If it wasn't for my issues with the comfort / fit, I would recommend them wholeheartedly. However I would be remiss if I didn't suggest that it might be a good idea to try them first if you are considering buying them. If you are lucky enough to have no fit or comfort issues, then you are getting a fantastic sounding IEM.
Once again I’d like to thank Vivian at DUNU for giving me this wonderful opportunity to review their products. 4/5 or 80% for me. I can't fault their sonics, but can't ignore the design issues with comfort for my over-ear preference.
UPDATE 6th JUNE
A little update to my review - and also a big shout out to Vivian and her engineers for sending me replacements. They didn't need to, I didn't ask for them - and it just goes to show how much DUNU want to make sure things are right.
The graphs are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. They aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will likely be significantly higher than m,y measurements.
The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and are useful as a comparison to other IEMs that I've measured on the same equipment.
DUNU kindly sent me a copy of their own graph - which I think shows the similarities between the results we're getting. Theirs shows a channel measured with and without a full seal. Not sure if it was left and right, or both measurements of one only
Anyway - last week I received the replacement pair of DN-2002, along with an upgrade cable DUNU are considering. The issue with my first pair of 2002 (the ones I reviewed) was some channel imbalance in the bass. It was pretty much unnoticeable with music playing, and didn't detract from my enjoyment of the 2002.
The replacement pair is graphed below. There is still some imbalance, again only with the bass. When I took the measurements I used the exact same tip for both channels (foam tip which gives a great seal). I also took 4 measurements of 5 iterations, so 20 in all, and took the closest matching average measurements to build the graphs. The seal is definitely a good one. Any channel imbalance is unnoticeable again, and these sound every bit as good as the first ones.
New DN-2002 channel measurement
1st pair vs 2nd pair
Main difference is that the channel matching is a lot closer, and this pair have a higher peak at 9kHz. They still sound really good, and would be my favourite DUNU release to date (sonic signature).
Here is DUNU's graph for comparison: But this time Vivian included something a little special that they've been working on. An upgraded copper aftermarket cable. Its two twisted pairs (4 separate wires which are twisted to a quad below the Y-split. This means converting to balanced is as simple as changing the jack. The cable is really supple, looks really good, reasonably low microphonics (over ear) - there are some, but it isn't bad. The connectors are a lot skinnier, and actually fit snugly inside the existing connectors. Not sure if they intend changing to something a little more suited to the socket dimensions, but I actually like these the way they are. The jack is right angled, quite heavy duty, and looks really amazing. Only one small nit-pick is that it's not friendly with my iPhone case - but it's only a small critique as it fits everything else fine.
The best thing about the cable is that it fits over-ear brilliantly - tends to stay there rather than occasionally unlooping. It is probably the small bit of extra weight and the suppleness. So looks good, fits well - how does it sound? Exactly the same as the other cables actually (c'mon you knew I was going to say that
). But to make sure - I measured. There was a volume difference of around 0.5 dB - but as you an see, the freq response is pretty much identical:
So is the cable upgrade worth it - hard to tell as I have no idea of whether its being offered as an extra or included for future accessory packs. I really like it though, and if it was reasonably priced I'd probably get one for the aesthetics and improved fit.
Pics below:
The replacement 2002s with the new cable
Connectors and jack - 4 separate conductors
The jack is heavy duty - love it
New skinny connector vs standard
New connector in place
The fit is actually really good and they seem to be very secure
For me, the FLC8S has better fit and more tuning options. The 2002 has better build and better default signature. Pick which is more important to your preferences. I genuinely like both.
In my personal opinion it won't make much (if any) difference. I've tested multiple cables with may different earphones - and unless you are dramatically changing impedance, and have a bumpy impedance curve in the earphone to start with, any changes will be minor. My advice - if you want to change the sound a bit - use EQ. You'll get a better more consistent result, and it will be a mile cheaper. Changing tips will have more of an effect than cables 99% of the time.
Pros: Sound quality, build quality, visual appeal, open sound, value, channel matching, ability to change signature with covers
Cons: L/R markings hard to see, 2-3 kHz peak (can be sharp with vocals)
For larger views of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
As a hobbyist reviewer, the one thing I've noticed with virtually all the manufacturers I've dealt with is a huge passion for what they do, and also a desire for continual improvement. I've been dealing with Lee from Venture Electronics for a bit over a year, and have so far had the pleasure of reviewing VE's Zen, Zen2 and Asura2 ear-buds and Runabout amplifier. I also have in my possession (and in my long review queue) the Monk and Monk Plus ear-buds, and the Enterprise amplifier. Today’s review is the Monk Plus ear-buds.
I bring up the comment on passion because of all the people I've interacted with so far, Lee has been one of the most engaging and passionate about his products. He's also brutally honest and expects the same in return. For me – as a reviewer – I love this approach.
ABOUT VENTURE ELECTRONICS Venture Electronics (or VE) is a 3 year old audio company based in Shenyang, Liaoning in the Peoples Republic of China. I was able to ask Lee a little about the company, and he has been very open and approachable – something I love to see when dealing with a manufacturer. It really shows a lot about a company when they show pride in their own achievements, and are so open about sharing information with their customer base.
VE is relatively small (for now) with 5 employees, and currently have a very small product line (Zen, Asura and Monk ear-buds, Duke IEM, Runabout portable amp, and Enterprise statement tube amp).
I asked Lee about their core business, and he said they were primarily an internet company, and had developed more products than were currently on offer, but for now their current product range covered enough to cater for immediate development. Their goal long term is “to have the best budget and hi-end gear”, and it was refreshing to see some frank and honest comments in reply to some of my inquiries. I’m going to quote one of Lee’s replies, because it really does add to my impression of VE as a company.
“We see our fans, not just as moving wallets. I see our budget gear (like the monk) as a walking ad for our brand, among our online community (people who love earphones, because they mainly they love the ART the earphones can deliver, like gaming, movie, anime and stuff. We believe the Zen is the best ear-bud in the world, and as we can sell the monk for cheap then it might go viral and get more attention to the other products. We believe to be the best hi-fi company, we need to have the best of the best gears, not only budget ones. If we only do budget, people will have a false image of us not being serious enough, so the idea is very simple”
And to close, I asked Lee about VE’s mission statement or values statement, and the answer I received made perfect sense – “keeping it real”. As I’ve furthered my correspondence with him – I can reassure anyone reading that this is a value very much in evidence.
DISCLAIMER The Monk Plus that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to Venture Electronics that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the Monk Plus for follow up comparisons. I do not make any financial gain from this review – it is has been written simply as my way of providing feedback both to the Head-Fi community and also VE themselves.
I have now had the Monk Plus since early this year January or February 2016 I think. Normal RRP is USD 5.00, and can be purchased on VE's Ali Express site The other means of trying the Monk Plus is to simply order one of their higher end models – you get one included free.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
I’ve used the Monk Plus from a variety of sources, but for main body of this review, I’ve used it primarily with my FiiO X3ii combined with the E11K amp, my iPhone and also the FiiO X7 with AM5 amp module. In the time I have spent with the Monk Plus, I have noticed no change in the overall sonic presentation – except for when I have changed variables such as covers.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The review sample arrived in a simple courier bag – so may not reflect the actual packaging coming from Ali. My understanding is that this pair came direct from Lee. He also sent a big bag of various covers – which I'll cover in their own separate section this time.
Besides the covers (with the retail version you just get the light red and blue thin foams), you can also order the expansion pack for an extra USD $5 (so $10.00) total and this gives you:
The Monk Plus
1 sets of thick full foams, 1 sets of thick do-nut foams and 4 sets of the thin foams
2 sets of rubber outer rings (1 white, 1 black) – I don't have these
1 set of small ear-hooks and 1 set of large
[size=inherit][/size]
The Monk Plus
Covers and Fins
Lee's pretty funny card "keeping it real"
After the technical specifications and build summary we'll take an in-depth look at the covers, and their effect on frequency response.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (From VE)
Type
Open dynamic ear-bud
Driver
15.4mm dynamic
Frequency Range
8 Hz – 22 Khz
Impedance
64 ohm
Sensitivity
112dB +/- 5dB (1mW)
Plug
3.5mm gold plated, straight jack
Cable
1.2m, TPE outer coat, 128 x 0.06 4n ofc copper
Weight
Approx 15g with single full foam covers
IEM Shell
Polycarbonate / hard plastic
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN Like the recently released Asura V2, and the previously released Zen 2, the new Monk Plus continues use of the “smoky” clear polycarbonate shell so you can see the internals. Reaction to this new shell has been very positive and I really like the aesthetic appeal of the new casing. One noticeable change this time is that the actual name of the product is this time on the long arm of the ear-bud.
[size=inherit][/size]
Monk Plus from the top
From the underside
From the side
The shell is practically identical to the Zen 2 and Asura 2 casing. It has two circular rows of ports (total 56) close to the outer edge of the main face. The rear of the ear-bud is ported on two opposite sides (two small and a single larger port), and there is also a rear port running parallel to, and along the full length of the cable exit. Aside from the name, the other major difference is that the Monk Plus has a black instead of clear front facing.
The entire ear-bud is approximately 33mm long from the top of the outer face to tip where the cable exits. There is no strain relief from the cable exit, but given my experience with Lee's other ear-buds (solidly built cable), the fact that the cable is internally secured and also primarily worn cable down, this should not be an issue.
[size=inherit][/size]
From the front
The Y-split and cinch
The jack
The cable is copper (128 x 0.06 4n ofc) with a black TPC outer jacket and each channel is separate and in side by side configuration – ideal if anyone wants to re-terminate to balanced. The cable is reasonably flexible, although it can be a bit unruly at times. It does appear to be slightly more flexible than the Asura V2 cable (marginally so) . Overall though practical, solid and very good for the product range placing.
The Y split is pretty small, made of flexible rubber, and has no relief (but again none is needed). This time there is small rubber cinch (which works beautifully), and this is one of the aesthetic differences fromee the original Monk. The jack is straight, 3.5mm, gold plated, and has excellent strain relief. The jack is also smart-phone case friendly, easily fitting my iPhone 5S with case intact.
[size=inherit][/size]
Left to right - Monk Plus, Monk original and Asura V2
Same 3 from the top rear
Same three from the under side
So the Monk Plus looks almost identical to the Zen 2 and Asura V2 in every aspect, barring the couple of small differences I noted. The only critique I would have is that the L/R markings on the earpiece stems are very hard to see.
FIT / COMFORT Since I've been testing the various ear-buds from VE, I’ve been using ear-buds a lot more than I used to. I knew from past experience that fit and comfort were going to be pretty good, and they are. Like my experience with Asura V2, one of the differences is that where I don't tend to use hooks or covers with the Zen 2, my own personal preference requires them for the Monk Plus (sonically). This does give me more helpful options for correct seating, and a more consistent sonic experience.
I now have both large and small stabilisers from VE, and have to admit I very much prefer Lee's stabilisers than the ones I was using from Dunu. These are sturdier, and far easier to get a consistent fit. Basically they sit over the housing, with the fin part angled upward and forward. The ear-bud body sits normally in the concha cavum (tucked inside the tragus and anti tragus), and the fin lies alongside the anti helix and basically locks against the concha cymba. This drastically aids stability, and if you are careful, allows you to angle the Monk Plus perfectly to meet your individual preference. It also allows a slightly better seal (by widening the body) which also affects bass response.
The other alternative we'll cover next is the use of foam covers and there are a lot of different options which all affect the sonics quite a bit. With either the covers or fins (or a combo of both) in play, I find the Monk Plus very comfortable and overall fit for me is pretty snug. As far as isolation goes – it is an ear-bud – so any isolation is minimal.
COVERS AND FREQUENCY GRAPHS The one thing I've learnt over time is that everyone has very different preferences, very different physiology, and very different experiences with different covers. This makes it really difficult as a reviewer as all I can relate is my own experience. The issue remains of how to show differences between the cover options, but also remain consistent.
So I jury-rigged a simply but reasonable effective attachment mechanism whereby I could couple the ear-bud to the Veritas coupler consistently and with the same pressure each time (in this case enough to hold in place but no more). What I've been trying to do is emulate the fit of the ear-bud. with and without covers.
[size=inherit][/size]
With do-nut covers
With full covers
With the new "light" or porous covers
The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
Further in the review I’ve added comparisons to other VE ear-buds, as well as taking measurements with covers on and off. One thing to take into account with all graphs in the review is that they will give very different reading dependent on the degree of seal you achieve. So use them as a comparative guide for discussion – but individual fit and experience will vary.
What I’m hearing (no covers):
Clean and quick bass, mostly mid-bass with a big sub bass roll-off (with no covers fitted).
Clean and very clear mid-range, extremely forward in the upper mid-range with good vocal clarity, but tending toward being very strident if used without covers. This is especially so with female vocalists and any instrument hitting the 2-3 kHz area.
Detailed treble – a little peaky in my personal sibilance triggering area (around 6-7 kHz)
Overall lean, bright, a little thin and quite peaky. Personally I would not recommend them without covers.
No covers
New thin foam covers
Ful foam covers
The thin red and blue covers: These covers are very thin and quite fragile (tear easily) and are very porous. Their benefit is the light density of the foam allowing a lot of air flow whilst still helping provide more seal than the Monk Plus fully naked. Measured and observable changes in sound:
Mid bass is more present whilst the peak at 2-3 kHz is nowhere near as large. This gives the Monk Plus a more balanced tonality – whilst remaining very lean clean and quick.
Lower treble is reduced slightly but remains very clean and detailed. There is still a peak (around 6-7 kHz), but it is not quite as bad with no covers.
Overall more balanced with more mid-bass and less upper end. This is a nice option if you prefer very forward vocals and a leaner signature.
Lee also asked me to try 2 sets of these covers on each earpiece, and I really quite liked this change. More balance again – more bass, and also less peaky. The problem with this approach is that I tore multiple sets of covers trying to get the dual pairs on.
Do-nuts or Thicker Full Foam I've shown these together as they are essentially the same frequency response with just the bass slightly higher on the full foams. Measured and observable changes in sound:
Mid bass and sub bass are both more present whilst the peak at 2-3 kHz is similar to the peak with the thinner foams. This gives the Monk Plus an even more balanced tonality overall – especially with bass in relation to mid-range.
Everything above 2 kHz is essentially the same as for the thin foams
The do-nuts would be my personal favourite of all the covers with the Monk Plus giving me the most balance overall, whilst still providing a very good and comfortable fit. Despite the better balance, I would still EQ the Monk Plus (even with the do-nuts) to get to my ideal signature.
[size=inherit][/size]
Do-nut covers
All covers compared
The fitting fins (not measured)
One other point to note is the extremely good channel matching (shown in all the graphs). Lee told me previously that they switched OEM factory and the proof is in the measurements. He’s very happy with the consistency of the results, and you can see why when looking at the care taken with driver matching. Any small variations could also be the seating on the Veritas coupler (really hard to get consistent with ear-buds). I did not try to measure with the fins / ear guides as seating on the coupler simply elevated the bass too much – and it wasn't consistent with what I was hearing.
But as always – the above is listed as a guide. The best way to get to an ideal is to simply experiment. Get an expansion pack and try each cover by itself or in combination with other covers. It costs next to nothing and is quite an interesting exercise.
POWER REQUIREMENTS The Monk Plus are 64 ohms, but with their sensitivity of 112 dB they can actually be driven well out of most portable devices without the need for any further amplification. Saying that though, I did enjoy the Monk Plus immensely with the FiiO X1 paired with Martin's Hybrid Valve Amp – especially with a little cut to the mid-bass.
To give you an idea in order to achieve an average listening SPL of 65-70 dB at the ear (plenty of volume for me)
FiiO X1 – 33-35/100 low gain, no replay gain or EQ.
FiiO X3ii – 48-50/120 low gain, no replay gain or EQ.
FiiO X5ii – 46-48/120 low gain, no replay gain or EQ.
iPhone 5S – approx. 7/16 (45%) clicks of volume.
FiiO M3 (tiny $55 DAP) – 20-21/60 volume.
I used a calibrated SPL meter – but just an average reading on the same piece of music each time. As you can see – all the devices had ample volume left on the pot. When I tried amping with E11K, E17K and HVA – there were slight changes of tonality (most noticeable with the HVA), but I noticed no increase in overall dynamics – naturally YMMV.
EQUALISATION After a while getting used to the Monk Plus, I've found no real need to EQ (using the do-nut foams), but subjectively wanted to try two things with the X7's equaliser – lowering the mid-bass and dropping the 2-3 kHz peak a little. I used small increments dropping the sliders at 62 and 250 Hz by about 1.5 dB and the slider at 125 Hz by around 3 dB. I also cut 2 kHz by 3 dB, 8kHz by 2dB and raised 4 kHz by 2dB. The result (to many anyway) was a slightly cleaner and more balanced sound, and one which would give me personally a better long-term listening experience.
Playing around with EQ is definitely recommended if you do find the bass needs a little more work, and combining EQ with the cover options definitely gives ample opportunity to find a signature which suits you personally.
USE OF IMPEDANCE ADAPTORS Whilst we're on the subject of changing the sonic signature, there were some claims (from the VE threads) that adding an impedance adaptor had quite an effect on the overall signature. Among the changes claimed was:
Increased sound-stage
More sparkly highs
More intimate mids
Deeper bass
More details
Clearer and cleaner sound
In case you are wondering, all the above are often quoted when two items are compared, and one is simply louder than the other.
Securing the Monk Plus in the coupler was the first job
Measurements with the 75 ohm adaptor are quite conclusive
I'd previously talked to Lee about use of an impedance adaptor and he had doubts there would be any changes – mainly because the drivers in the Monk Plus essentially had a very flat impedance curve. So I ordered some adaptors to check for myself. The following graph was taken with my usual measuring set-up. That consists of an external soundcard and connection via USB paired with an E11K. The sound card has been nulled via loop back to give an entirely flat response. From the external card, I run line-out to a FiiO E11k because I know it measures completely flat and has less than 1 ohm output impedance. Monk Plus is connected to the amp, Veritas to the sound card. Monk Plus is then fixed to the coupler so it can't move and measured multiple times to make sure measurements are consistent. Recordings are then taken with and without the adaptor and then precisely volume matched.
Blue line is the Monk Plus with no adaptor. Green line is same set-up with the 75 ohm adaptor added. Red line is the two volume matched.
The data speaks for itself. The only difference is a very slight increase in sub bass between 20-30 Hz (inaudible), and a fractional drop in 40-70hz sub to mid-bass. This drop is 1 dB or less, so again would not be noticeable with actual music playing. If it was noticeable, it isn't going to be the obvious “smoothed treble" some people were talking about.
As suspected - the adaptor drops volume by adding impedance. If you volume match and compare, they sound exactly the same.
SOUND QUALITY I'm going to shorten this area in all my future reviews because I can tend to ramble a bit, and it may help make the reviews easier to follow.
The following is what I hear from the Monk Plus. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). For my testing I used the FiiO X3ii, no EQ, low gain, and a volume at 40-45/120 giving me an SPL ranging from about 60-65 dB (a weighted) at the ear. I used the do-nut covers because they suit my ears the best. I could have tested the Monk Plus naked (without covers), but I don't think that would have been fair, as without them, it is too sharp for my personal tastes. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and most can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used: Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
Reasonable balance with heightened mid-bass
Relatively good detail retrieval although sometimes slightly overshadowed by the mid-bass
Cymbals have reasonable presence and decay
Guitar can be slightly sharp with the upper-mid boost
Does not have same sense of overall resolution as Asura or Zen(s)
Sound-stage & Imaging (+ Sibilance) Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
Quite open sounding
Good sense of width and projection is just out of head
Not a huge amount of overall depth – could be the heightened early upper-mid bump.
Imaging is very good and separation of instruments is far better than its very low cost would indicate
Immersion is good (applause section of Dante's Prayer) with impression that crowd is around you. This is continued with the holographic presentation of “Let It Rain”
Overall I would all the staging as open, but realistic and slightly intimate rather than expansive.
Sibilance is revealed in “Let It Rain” - but not magnified
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Very good mid-bass impact for an ear-bud.
Slightly boomy with the do-nuts, and a little mid-bass bleed but not enough to be troubling or obtrusive
Good projection of bass timbre and texture (Mark's vocals in “Muddy Waters”)
Enough sub-bass for rumble to be audible, but subdued (“Royals”)
Very good separation between mid-bass thump and vocals (“Royals”)
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake me Up, Ship To Wreck.
Very good transition from lower-mids to upper-mids
Euphonic presentation with good air and a touch of sweetness to female vocals
Beautiful contrast between vocals and lower pitch of instruments like cello
No signs of stridency, but female vocals are a lot more intimate (closer) than male vocals.
Plays all my female vocalists extremely well – definite tick for female vocals
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Plenty of dynamic slam from the bass, good presence with lead guitar and with brass instruments
Male vocals slightly more distant to female vocals, better sense of depth
Vocals sound quite realistic – but also slightly thin compared to female vocals
Good presentation of timbre and tone – very good with Pearl Jam
Other Genres
Very good with most forms of Rock – but I'd tend to still EQ the mid-bass down just a little for overall balance. Very good with Alt Rock too – especially Porcupine Tree – Wilson's vocals are amazing.
Good with Blues and Jazz although mid-bass did tend to slightly overshadow cymbal decay a little. Great with brass. Bonamassa was particularly good with the Monk Plus (both vocals and guitar)
Bass heavy music has reasonable bass impact – but it isn't earth shaking. Quite good with both Hip-hop and Electronic, and very enjoyable with trance.
Pop could get very slightly shouty in the upper mids with poor recordings, but generally very good. Indie was brilliant – mid-bass really went well with some brighter recordings
Classical on the whole was really good – stand-outs being solo piano and solo Cello. Lacked a little depth with full orchestra (definitely prefer Zen2), but for the price cannot complain.
COMPARISONS The obvious questions here will be how the Monk Plus compares to the original Monk, and I have covered that in a bit more depth. I've also shown comparison to another solid performer in the same price bracket (FiiO EM3), and against the next bracket up (Asura 2).
Monk Original vs Monk Plus
[size=inherit][/size]
Monk Plus vs Monk original
Both with no covers
Both with thin foam covers
Aesthetically the two are very similar with the same physical size dimensions and similar cabling. The main difference in physical appearance is the original Monk having an opaque black plastic body, and the Monk Plus having the see-through smoky-clear body. The Monk Plus also has the cinch above the y-split, and it's actual model name on the ear-bud. arm.
In terms of specifications, the main change with the Monk Plus is the impedance jump from 32 ohms to 64 ohms, and as you'll see from the comparative measurements, much better channel matching on the Monk Plus.
Sonically – both with no covers – the two are very similar, with both sounding thin, very peaky in the mids and overly bright. There might be a hint of better separation of instruments with the Monk Plus – but without covers neither are particularly pleasant to listen to for my tastes.
With both do-nuts and full foams – both ear-buds. gain a lot of bass, and also soften the early upper mid-range peak. This balances both signatures out, and for my listening preferences, I think the do-nuts with both really do give the optimum signature. The subjective difference with covers intact is that the original Monk has a little more overall balance, is a little more laid back, and the vocals (and indeed the mid-range in general) isn't quite as vivid as the Monk Plus. So this pretty much comes down to individual preference.
Both with do-nut covers
Both with full covers
With the thin covers, they are back sounding very similar again with the Monk Plus sounding slightly thicker and a little bassier. Again for me personally, I simply find the presentation of the new foams a little too sharp in the upper mid-range.
I know I'll get asked “the question” so I may as well answer it now. For my own personal tastes, and using the do-nut covers with both ear-buds., I actually slightly prefer the original Monk to the new version. But for the price, both are excellent performers and full deserving of their cult like following.
FiiO EM3 vs Monk Plus
FiiO's new EM3 earphone comes in at USD 10.00, so in a similar value segment, but does not come with the same accessories you can get with spending $10 on the Monk Plus with extension pack. The Build of the EM3 is actually pretty good, but simply does not feel quite as sturdy as either of the Monks with thinner cables and body arm. The body itself is much deeper and cone shaped, compared to the Monk housing being flatter. Personally I find the Monks to actually fit my ears better and stay in place, where the FiiO tends to want to move around even with FiiO's default foams intact (it is better with VE's full foams). FiiO's foam covers also have a tendency to slip off. But using the Monk short fins on the EM3 and then slipping a cover over the top solves this problem completely.
Sonically I find the Monk Plus to be a little warmer, and has more fullness through the vocal range. It also sounds just the smallest bit more natural, although if I do switch to VE full foams a lot of those differences disappear, and the two sound very similar (biggest difference again being presentation of vocals).
To be fair, I haven't done a lot of critical listening with the FiiO when I wrote the notes for the Monk Plus – but there is no doubt that both ear-buds. kick well above their price – especially so when you add the EM3's microphone (my Apple Earpods are now redundant).
[size=inherit][/size]
Monk Plus vs FiiO EM3
Monk Plus vs FiiO EM3 and Asura V2
Monk Plus vs Asura V2
Asura 2 vs Monk Plus
The build on both is practically identical with the Asura2 having a slightly better cable and right angled jack. Otherwise aesthetically they are essentially the same (visually) – except for the Asura having the clear face plate.
The Monk Plus naked follows a very similar pattern to the Asura2, but has a far bigger dip in the mid-range, and bigger peak through 2 kHz. This makes the Monk Plus sound comparatively thinner through the mid-range, and has higher comparative peaks.
The better comparison is the Asura 2 with the new thin foams, and the Monk Plus with full foams or do-nuts (see graph). This has the Monk Plus having a bigger bass response, and a comparative larger rise at 2 kHz. The Asura 2 IMO still has a better vocal transition between lower and upper mid-range, and for me anyway remains the better tuning, but I can see how those who like a bit more robustness in the bass and a bit more presence in the upper mids are going to love the Monk Plus.
MONK PLUS – SUMMARY
Firstly I'd like to again thank Lee for giving me the chance to listen to VE’s entire line-up, and for answering my many questions. I'm yet to write a review for the original Monks (I will try to get to this soon).
The Monk Plus shares many of the traits in build and tonality to its other siblings. The shells on the Monk Plus are very similar to the Asura 2 and Zen 2, and apart from minor cosmetic differences in build (face plates and cinch), the Monk Plus is physically similar to the entire VE ear-bud. line-up.
Sonically the Monk Plus actually sits incredibly close to the original Monk, and if comparing with same covers – the main differences seem to be slightly increased bass, and slightly more upper-mid-range presence (more vivid). The Monk Plus still manages a reasonably natural presentation overall, and although it does sound quite open, I personally don't hear it being more expansive in stage than either the original Monk or its higher ranging siblings.
Ultimately personal preference is going to dictate what each individual will like the most, and if I had to make a choice for my own tastes – I still slightly prefer the original Monk. What hasn't changed is the incredible value of either Monk, and for a measly $10 I'd definitely suggest buying the Monk Plus and expansion accessory pack and simply having a lot of fun with different combinations.
Example of possibilities fins with foams or donuts underneath and thin foam on top
Alternate picture showing the possibilities
How to score is the conflicting question. They are not perfect, so its hard to justify 5/5 – but then I look at the price, and ask myself how I could give any other score for something which provides so much sonic ability for so little value.
FINAL THOUGHTS For those seeking the pinnacle in the VE line-up, to me it remains VE's Zen 2 (there has never been any question of that to me). But the Monk Plus is a great place to start. Lee and KK actually have a pretty natural progression going on here – because the logical stepping stones (in order) are Monk Plus, Asura 2, and then Zen 2. To really appreciate the entire line-up though, I would recommend trying each if you have the opportunity. The journey nets its own rewards and ultimate appreciation.
Thanks to this review I'm now far more excited to receive a set of $5 ear buds than I've ever been. I've heard these compared to Sennheiser's (same mold and similar "flat" response) and as I'm a huge fan of their range I'm quite interested to hear/compare these. Great review!
For larger (1200 x 800) images, click any picture
INTRODUCTION
The RM1 is a very small and quite versatile Blue-tooth controller unit. This one came out of the “blue” a little – although I can see the reason for FiiO developing it as a natural accompaniment to the X7 with its wireless capability. So let's skip the usual preamble and get down to the specifics – how well does it work, and is it worth your investment.
ABOUT FIIO By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary. FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. They debuted their first DAP (the X3) in 2013, and despite some early hiccups with developing the UI, have worked with their customer base to continually develop the firmware for a better user experience. The X3 was followed by the X5, X1, X3 2nd Gen (X3ii), X5 2nd Gen (X5ii), M3 and X7. FiiO now have a growing range of amplifiers, DAPs, DACs, and accessories (even earphones), and they still follow the same simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.
DISCLAIMER The RM1 Blue-tooth Remote was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to FiiO that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. Sunny has told me recently that they do not want any of the products back, preferring me to keep them for follow up reviews or for my own personal use. I am grateful for this – so in this sense the RM1 is a “free sample”.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and of course the Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
I've now had the RM1 for at least a couple of months and have tested it in as many scenarios as I could. This includes in my car, paired with my iPhone 5S, FiiO's X7 DAP, Blue-tooth headphones like the XTZ Divine, and Blue-tooth speakers like the Sound Blaster Roar.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The RM1 arrived in a retail box and lid measuring approximately 65 x 162 x 48mm. On the front of the sleeve is a picture of the bottom half of the X7 with RM1 mounted in its hand-held remote chassis, and on the rear is a photo alongside the X7 (docked to K5) and also the RM1 in its holder on a car steering wheel.
[size=inherit][/size]
Retail box and lid
Rear of the box
Removal of the lid
Removing the lid reveals the RM1 in a cardboard holder. Roving this then reveals two hidden compartments – one holding the steering-wheel attachment, a lanyard, and spare battery (there was also one fitted already – a nice touch).
Inside the top holder compartment is the documentation – a warranty and user manual.
[size=inherit][/size]
All the accessories
Lanyard, hand-held remote and car adaptor
Car adaptor
We'll cover the build etc. below.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The table below lists most of the relevant specifications. I have (as a comparison) also listed specifications from the default AM1 and also the AM2 module.
Diameter
35 mm diameter
Thickness
7.8 mm
Weight
10g (incl battery)
Effective Range
10 m
Operating Freq
2.4 gHz
Battery
75 mHh CR2016 (3V)
Sleep Mode
After 11 minutes (inactivity)
Blue-tooth Support
3.0 standard and above
BUILD / DESIGN The RM1 is a pretty svelte button shaped device measuring 35 mm in diameter and just under 8mm thick. The front face consists of a black satiny rubber face with a multi-directional single button. The button pivots on 4 axis, with volume up and down on the vertical axis, and previous / next on the horizontal axis. A centre push activates play or pause. Between the centre and top buttons is a single blue LED which indicates functions/modes.
Around the circumference of the RM1 is a brushed aluminium ring which is nicely bevelled, and has a central indent which holds the RM1 snugly in the accessory you've chosen (remote or car connection holder).
[size=inherit][/size]
Top face - directional button
Bottom - battery compartment and single device button
The blue LED
On the rear is similar material to the front, but dominated this time by a single compartment to hold the battery (a 3C CR2016 button type battery). On the outer ring is a place to hold/thread the lanyard, and a single very small button to control the RM1 (on/off and pairing). This button is pretty tiny, and really needs a fingernail to press and hold.
The remote bar This is a black slightly flexible 42 x 96 mm piece of reasonably rigid rubber with a mounting hold for RM1. It has a slight lip which snaps and holds the RM1 securely. It has rounded corners and bevelled edges, and feels quite comfortable when in use. The FiiO name logo is etched into the lower front face. To remove the RM1 simply turn the device over, press your thumb into the rear hole, and press the RM1 out into a waiting palm. Simple but effective.
The car mount This made of the same black semi-rigid hard rubber, with similar design principles (nice rounding, bevelled edges, a lip to hold the RM1 securely, and a rear hold to dismount the RM1 from the holder. The holder is shaped like a large ring with a split band, to mount it in your car, you simply slip it over the steering wheel in the desired position. It really couldn't be easier.
So for physical build and design, so far pretty good – except for the somewhat fiddly button – but due to size constraints, FiiO may not have had many options on implementation with this feature.
CONNECTION / USABILITY To use the RM1, you simply hold the small button at the back for 1 second. To power it off, hold the same button for 3 seconds. The blue light flashes once for power on and 3 times for power off.
First Time Pairing Turn the RM1 on and it will automatically go into broadcast mode (flashing blue light). Make sure your device is in pairing mode, and look for the “FiiO RM1” to be recognised. Once found, select it and the device automatically pairs.
Reconnecting After power on the next time, the RM1 automatically goes into search mode – looking for former pairings to activate. If it finds one it automatically pairs, and you're good to go. If it doesn't, it goes into broadcast mode for 60 seconds looking for a new pairing, which if it doesn't get after 60 seconds, it shuts down.
Use In The Car
RM1 would be perfect for anyone without Bllue-tooth in their car
Very easy to fit and use.
I did try to pair straight to the Blue-tooth in my car – but no dice. But pairing with my iPhone or X7, and then using them with the car stereo is no issues (via aux or even Blue-tooth). Everything works as it is supposed to, and it is very easy to mount the device anywhere on the wheel. If I didn't already have Blue-tooth in my car, it would definitely be a simple and elegant solution. For those already having Blue-tooth connections though, usefulness will be superfluous (unless you have a passenger who wants control of the stereo).
Use with The SB Roar This was a similar issue to the car – I couldn't pair direct to the Roar, but I could connect to the iPhone, and connect that to the Roar. It worked really well too …… except I can control the Roar equally well with just my iPhone over Blue-tooth – so it kind of defeats the purpose.
Use with the XTZ Divine Again – couldn't connect direct to the headphones, but can connect to the source. And – it works really well. But – I can either use the on-headset controls or iPhone (which I have to have on me to use the headphones). So again – limited use.
Use with the X7 and/or iPhone Easy connection. Works as advertised. If I have an alternate amp connected via headphone-out, and paired with speakers – then it's a great wireless solution. I really like the ability to change track and volume. It just needs to be the right set-up.
Use with the X7 and K5 This is the one I thought would be most useful – FiiO even have a picture of the X7 docked on the back of the packaging. The problem is that if I use it in the dock – it's the K5 which controls the volume, and not the X7. Which makes the RM1 kind of useless with the X7 and K5 paired together. For FiiO to think about – when you release the K5 V2 eventually – and include a variable rear RCA setting so I can control my monitors with it (please) – also consider putting a Blue-tooth volume control in the K5, or allowing the X7 to control K5's volume over Blue-tooth. You then have a really killer desktop set-up. And that would make the RM1 hugely useful.
ISSUES Usage sounds simple and most of the time it is. But it can also be an exercise in frustration at times. Press a little too long on the button, and it'll go into pairing mode, or worse still – turn itself off. And then you have to repeat the process. And sometimes I've got the device perfectly paired, then go to snap it into the reticle/holder, causing it to push the button, and all of a sudden I'm back in pairing mode again. It isn't a big issue – but I've lost count of the number of times I've missed the connection, and had to start again. It would be a lot simpler if the on/off button was on the rear, and a separate pairing button was on the front.
Apart from that the only other issue I've had has been specifically related to the X7. FiiO know about this one, and it appears to be a fault with the X7 rather than the RM1. If I don't push any buttons, one of the two devices goes into “Blue-tooth sleep mode” after about 10-11 minutes. When this happens, the X7 jumps in volume. It is repeatable and happens every time. Last time I simply set it playing the same song over and over and measured peak dB with my meter before and after and the delta was around 7.5 dB – which is quite a hike. Something to be aware of if you're pairing the RM1 with the X7.
RANGE I tested the range, and FiiO's 10m seems to be pretty accurate. As soon as I started to get beyond that. Connection was at first flaky, then failed altogether. To FiiOs credit though, when I tested it and lost the connection, the RM1 immediately started looking again, and reconnection was pretty straight forward.
FiiO RM1 SUMMARY / CONCLUSION
FiiO have themselves a very good little unit with the RM1. It pairs well with most smart devices, has easy operation, really well thought out usability options (the holders), and a pretty solid build. The button (pairing & on/off) configuration could do with a little more work – but I'm pretty happy with the quality of the unit and accessories. It would be fantastic for the car (if you don't already have Blue-tooth connections), and is an ideal pairing with a smart stereo system (as long as it is able to pair).
At around $25.00 (Penon Audio - http://penonaudio.com/FiiO-RM1) the RM1 is pretty good value, and well worth checking out – even just for curiousity sake.
4 stars from me – mainly because the X7 issues may be with the X7 rather than the RM1 itself. For me personally though, not a lot of use with my current gear (maybe in the future).
FINAL THANKS Once again thanks to Sunny at FiiO for giving me a chance to try the RM1 before its global release.
Theoretically it should work on most Bluetooth devices - unfortunately without having the exact device it is impossible for me to say yes or now with certainty
Cons: Boomy and bass oriented (some will find this a good thing), upper mid/lower treble spike
For larger images (1200 x 800 - please click any photo)
INTRODUCTION
Brainwavz is a company that has a good name at the lower end of the price market when it comes to portable audio, and they've specialised particularly in the $20 - $100 end of the market, offering many choices which should give options to suit most people's budget and individual preference. I’ve previously had both good and bad experiences with their headphones / IEMs – I previously reviewed and owned their B2 IEMs and HM5 headphones, and I have fond memories of both as stellar performers when they were introduced. I’ve also sampled and reviewed their R1, R3, S5, S0, M1, R3 V2, Jive IEMs and S3 – and whilst some have been (IMO) solid performers, others haven’t been quite as well aligned with my preferences.
When Pandora approached me about the XF200 I was quite interested – mainly because of the ergonomic design – but also the price point they had targeted. Getting a decent sport earphone at a $20-$30 price point is not an easy task. So Let's see how they managed.
One small point before we continue - my apologies for the quality of the photos. With the white case and cable it was hard to maintain a consistent white balance.
DISCLAIMER The Brainwavz X-Fit XF200 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to Brainwavz that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the XF200 for follow up comparisons. I do not make any financial gain from this review – it is has been written simply as my way of providing feedback both to the Head-Fi community and also Brainwavz themselves.
I have now had the XF200 since February 2016. Normal RRP is USD 25.00 (Amazon)
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
Over the last few months – I’ve used the XF200 from a variety of sources, but for this review, I’ve mainly used it with my iPhone 5S and FiiO X1 or M3. I've used a smart-phone and value oriented DAPs as this is likely to be more in-line with the target audience.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
[size=inherit][/size]
Front of the retail box
Rear of the retail box
Side of the retail box
The Brainwavz XF200 arrived in a 93 x 165 x 45mm fully plastic retail box. The box has a fresh green and dark blue colouring with a graphic of someone running while using earphones (on top of the packaging), and an actual image of the XF200 on the lower half. The packaging states “Ergonomic Over-The-Ear Design”, “Secure Fit During Activities” and “Crisp Clear Bold Sound”. The side of the box states that genuine Comply tips are included, and also that the earphones have a 24 month warranty (which is pretty amazing considering their cost). On the rear of the box are full specifications and a list of accessories, as well as more “marketing type” information about the earphones.
[size=inherit][/size]
The inner packaging
Tips and carry case
Carry case, XF200, clip and velcro tie
Overall the packaging is fresh, and very easy to read – good job. Opening the retail box reveals a slide-out plastic formed tray containing:
The XF200 earphones
The very familiar back and red Brainwavz zip-up case
A velcro cable tie
A shirt clip
6 sets of silicone ear tips (S,M,L)
1 set of bi-flange silicone ear tips
1 set of Comply sports S400 tips
Instruction manual and warranty card
Considering the value price of the XF200 – the accessory package is extremely good value.
Tips, tie and clip
The XF200
The Brainwavz carry case is a hard fabric covered zippered case – and easily carries all your tips and the XF200. The case is really good because it does offer a lot of protection to the IEMs – but it is definitely more suited to transport in a jacket pocket or bag rather than a trouser pocket – simply due to its height. This is definitely a quality carry case though.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (From Brainwavz)
Drivers
Dynamic 9mm
Shell
Clear plastic
Rated Impedance
16 ohm
Frequency Range
20 Hz – 20 kHz
Sensitivity
95 dB at 1 mW
Cable
1.4m copper with mic and volume / track controls
Jack
3.5mm, 45 degree angled, gold plated
Weight
16g with tips attached
Fitting
Ergonomic, over ear.
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will likely be significantly higher. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
Excellent channel matching - very V shaped response
XF200 CSD
I measured both channels, and driver matching is extremely good – well done Brainwavz.
What I’m hearing:
Very elevated bass response – both mid and low bass
Comparatively recessed mid-range, with quite lean lower mids, and raised upper mids – particularly in the presence area from 2-3 kHz. This leaves vocals a little thin in body but very clean and clear.
Clear upper end which portrays sibilance if it is present in a track, but does not accentuate it. There is a certain amount of crispness to the lower treble.
Overall it is a V shaped signature with warm bottom end, and thin but crisp and clean top end.
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN My pair of XF200 were the white cable and clear housing. The housing is plastic, squarish shape, but with an ergonomic over-ear design (ideal for gym work). The shell itself is 16mm in length, and 17mm from the bottom of the shell to the cable exit (the actual body is only approx 12mm tall though). It is quite flat, just 10 mm at its widest point, and the nozzle extends a further 8mm on an angle forward from the IEM body. The nozzle is 5mm in diameter, has a mesh covering – but no lip. My first try with the XF2 was therefore an exercise in frustration, as most of my after-market tips simply slid off the nozzle and were left in my ears. I relayed this information to Brainwavz within a few days of receiving them. It is the one real fail with the design of the XF200 in my view. The fix is easy however. I simply wound some clear tape around the nozzles to fatten them.
[size=inherit][/size]
Rear view
Front view
Nozzle angle
Although I looked carefully I could not find any dynamic driver vent or port, and there is some driver flex present if using tips with high sealability. I also experienced some issues with creating a vacuum in my canals with anything giving me a great seal. Just a point to note, and for me personally a large foam tip gave me the ideal between seal, comfort and avoiding vacuum issues.
Thanks to @B9Scrambler, I was able to locate a very tiny vent below and to the bottom of the nozzle (internal side). Despite this vent, I still experienced some driver flex and also vacuum seal issues if I used a silicone tip with an excellent seal. The answer (for me anyway) was to use foam tips which helped avoiding both issues.
There is generous strain relief from the housing exit, and also at the Y split and jack. The cable is a 1.4m standard copper cable in an outer quite smooth TPE sheathing. From the cable exit there is just under 7cm of preformed “loop” or memory wire. This is preformed and non user-adjustable, but also works extremely well when combined with the cinch. It simply fits over ear, is quite comfortable, and does a really good job of staying put. The cable itself is slightly micro-phonic, but this can be eliminated bus tucking under clothing, or using the cinch.
[size=inherit][/size]
From the back
No lip on the nozzles!
Fixed with a bit of tape
On the right hand section (between Y-split and earpiece) is a combined microphone and control unit. The control unit has a single button for track control and separate volume buttons. This unit hangs just under my jaw (so ideal height for the mic). The jack is gold plated, 4 pole, has excellent strain relief, and is angled (around 45 degrees). It also fits my iPhone easily with the case on (great design choice).
The on cable controls work perfectly with my iPhone 5S, allowing volume changing, and also play/pause (one push), next track (two pushes), and previous track (three pushes). A single long push also activates Siri which is really handy. I also tried them with my Wife's Galaxy, and everything worked perfectly (including volume controls) except for the previous track (3 pushes) – it simply advanced the track and either paused or played (depending what was active). With the FiiO M3 and X1, the track buttons worked perfectly – but the volume controls did not (this is a FiiO issue rather than a Brainwavz issue. I also tested the XF200 with taking a call (with my wife), and it was reasonably clear at both ends. There was the usual hollow sound on my end due to the isolation and slight bone conduction.
[size=inherit][/size]
Controls module (on cable)
Y-split and cinch
45 deg angled jack
All in all – very good build and design for the price point, with the exception being the lipless nozzle.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION I have one ear canal slightly different to the other one (my right is very slightly smaller) - so I tend to find that usually single silicon flanges don't fit overly well. I initially tried the large silicone tips included, and they were surprisingly good. I did have some vacuum issues and driver flex though. As I mentioned earlier, most of my after-market tips either didn't fit or slid off. In the end I wound the nozzles with a bit of tape, and after that had no issues fitting most tips. I settled on Comply large comfort foam tips which gave me the best combination of comfort and seal.
[size=inherit][/size]
Stock tips - fit pretty well
Spin-fits were good, Ostry needed tape (more girth)
Foam and Sony Isolation
Isolation is better than average (probably because of the lack of porting), and comfort for me is excellent. The XF200 are nicely rounded internally, and there are no sharp protruding edges. They sit inside my outer ear, so it would be possible to lie on my side with them, and I would have no issues sleeping with them intact.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the Brainwavz XF200. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done my iPhone 5S and FiiO X1.
Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Thoughts on General Signature As I outlined above in my comments in the frequency section, the Brainwavz XF200 has quite a V or U shaped signature with the main frequency boosts in the mid and sub-bass, and also in the upper mid-range. As such it tends to sound (for me anyway) quite thin through the mid-range, but with a lot of bottom end, and also a lot of sweetness particularly with female vocalists. The comparative dip in the vocal range gives a sense of space or distance, and the relative dip in lower treble ensures there is no excessive sibilance. Brainwavz description of crisp clear bold sound certainly seems to be accurate.
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used : Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
The XF200 renders both tracks reasonably well with reasonable levels of detail and clarity. Cymbals are there but not highlighted, and definitely not glarey or etched in any way. Vocals sit back a little compared to the bass guitar which is quite prominent. Sax is well presented in Gaucho, and lead guitar in Sultans still has plenty of presence and bite. Once I got used to the extra bass, it's actually a pretty fun any dynamic listening experience, and detail definitely doesn't take a back seat.
Sound-stage, Imaging & Sibilance Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
First up was Amber Rubarth’s binaural track, and the XF200 has quite a narrow and intimate presentation. This is not particularly helped by the boom coming from the percussion. Depth and width are both close rather than expansive, and even though the track is binaural – it is still well within my “headspace”.
“Dante’s Prayer” was next, and the XF200 delivered an intimate performance, but with good contrast between the beauty of McKennitt’s vocals and the melancholy (but gorgeous) accompaniment of the cello. Imaging is reasonable with everything where it should be (I know the stage setting of this live track well). In this track, the applause at the end can be so well presented that with some headphones (HD600) I can actually close my eyes and imagine myself in the crowd. With the XF200, I wasn’t quite inside the crowd, but I could place it either side of me – so more strengths here on width than depth – but actually quite impressive all the same.
Last was Amanda Marshall’s “Let It Rain” – and I use this track because it has a naturally holographic feel about it (the way it was recorded), and can convey an amazing sense of space with the right headphones. The XF200 was reasonably holographic – but not to the extent I know the track can be. Marshall (in this recording) can also be sibilant at times. The XF200 had no issues – it was present but not highlighted.
Bass Quantity and Quality Tracks used : Bleeding Muddy Waters, Royals
I started with Lannegan’s Muddy Waters which I use to evaluate bass quality. This blues rock track is quite dark and brooding anyway, and usually exposes any muddiness or bass bleed. The XF200 displayed very good depth with this track and genuine visceral impact. There is the slightest hint of bass bleed through into the vocal area, but nothing too much to detract the overall presentation. It doesn't quite manage to present the timbre and gravel of Mark’s voice (it is slightly lean and distant) but enjoyable despite this.
To see how low the bass would go I switched to Lorde’s “Royals” – and from the opening notes it was clear that the low bass has impressive extension. When the bass guitar kicked in, it felt like the low bass was going to rumble my head off. Too much quantity for me personally but it was impressive how clear Ella’s vocals remained.
Female Vocals Track used : Aventine, Strong, The Bad in Each other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake Me Up
Up first was the hardest track in the repertoire, Agnes Obel's “Aventine”. For some reason IEM’s that are slightly “off” seem to play this track with a hollow or slightly strident tone. The XF200 is practically perfect with this tack – and I do mean perfect. Agnes’ vocals are sweet and slightly euphoric or sweet, whilst the accompanying cello is beautifully deep and almost mournful (wonderful timbre). Already for lovers of female vocals, you can tell these are special.
London Grammar was next with Strong, and at this point I knew that the XF200 really handles female vocals brilliantly. A joy to listen to and Hannah’s voice shone with them. The only distraction for me again was the volume of bass in the background – but that is personal taste. With Feist and FaTM (both tracks having good bass slam and really dynamic contrasts), vocals were clear and sweet – but again the bass was excessive for my personal tastes. I'd be EQing back if I wasn't reviewing it.
With slower and lusher tracks (Cilmi / Jones) the XF200 is a lot better – mainly because the tracks aren't overly bassy by default. Cilmi's “Safer” was gorgeous from start to finish and with Norah all I'd be doing is Eqing the bass a little lower to take care of the dominant bass guitar. The rest is really good.
Male Vocals Tracks used : Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Keith Don’t Go, EWBTCIAST
I suspected this was going to be an interesting contrast because I knew the XF200 had significant bass ability, but also that the lower mids can seem a little distant – which would have an effect on male vocals in particular. Kicking off with 3 Doors Down, and the XF200 actually sounds pretty good (I'm getting used to the vocal presentation by now). There is no question that vocals are definitely slightly back in the mix, but the V shaped nature seems to suit rock music and already I can see these being great for the gym. Bass is dynamic, has great impact, and lead guitar brings wonderful contrast with great edge. 10CC was actually a revelation because its not an overly bassy track but the XF200 just gave it another level in dynamism. Really enjoyable. Likewise acoustic tracks were very enjoyable. Clear, articulate, and although a little lean, still had good vocal clarity.
My ultimate test for male vocals though has always been Pearl Jam. This was a quite different presentation, and although there was great presentation of cymbals and upper end detail, Eddie's vocals just weren't quite there for me. Still enjoyable – but missing some magic that makes PJ special to me.
Other Genres I tested the XF200 with all of my main listening tracks, and the recurring theme was very dependent on what was playing. Anything with a lot of bass quickly became excessive for me. And anything with deep male vocals was slightly thin. I'll cover them with quick bullet points though:
Alt Rock – like classic rock, the XF200 was mostly pretty good with this genre, but dependent on the recording. Really enjoyed both Floyd and Porcupine Tree. Very dynamic.
Jazz – actually very good. Cymbals and softly brushed snares were very good. Double bass extremely enjoyable with amazing depth. Portico Quartet was exceptional and especially the track “Steepless” with Cornelia on vocals.
Blues – Bonamassa again really good. The XF200 seems to do guitar particularly well, and Joe’s vocals were really enjoyable. There wasn't too much bass in the tracks I listened to, so the overall presentation was dynamic and cohesive.
Rap / Hip-hop – Lots of mid and sub bass and visceral impact. Your level of enjoyment will likely be relative to how much you appreciate bass
Electronic / Trip-Hop / Trance – Little Dragon was great vocally but a little boomy in the bottom end. Stirling was slamming and this definitely emitted a “club vibe”. Trance was very enjoyable, and especially any tracks with female vocal. Bass light electronic was spectacular – thoroughly enjoyed the Flashbulb.
Pop – A little thin and distant in the vocals at times, but would imagine that many people will love the overall dynamics of the presentation.
Indie – generally very good, and Wildlight was spectacular (Ayla's vocals are sensational with the XF200). Did tend to get a little overly boomy at times.
Classical was a mixed bag. There was enough sense of dynamics, timbre and tone to be enjoyable most of the time. Standouts for me were Zoe Keating’s cello (Escape Artist) and Kempffs solo piano. Weak points would be Pavarotti (the power of his vocals was lost), and the overall width with some orchestral pieces.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The XF200 is very easily powered straight out of virtually any portable device, and I didn’t experience any issues with any of the DAPs I tested (iPhone 5S, or any of the FiiOs). With the iPhone I was between 30 and 40% on most tracks, and with the X1 around 25-30/120. I did test the X1 with both the FiiO E17K and IMS HVA, and I couldn’t say it added anything sonically once volume matched.
EQUALISATION I didn't spend a lot of time on this – mainly just trying to see if I could get Pearl Jam sounding a little closer to my ideal, To do this I cut sub-bass by about 4 dB, and gave a slow hump or hill between the 160 Hz slider and 1 kHz slider on the X1 (only a couple of dB). Even this small change helped a lot, and I'm sure I could refine this given a little extra time, and an equaliser with a few more options.
The good thing is that the XF200 responds well to EQ and can be manipulated if its close to your ideal signature and merely requires some subtle tweaks.
COMPARISONS I wasn't too sure what to compare with for this section, but given that the overall signature is reasonably close to that of the Brainwavz Jive, and also it is being marketed as a “Sports Earphone” I thought the two obvious candidates would be the Jive and also the relatively new Alpha & Delta D2m from Lend Me Ur Ears. And because I also received the T-Peos Raisel, and it is a similar tuning – thought I'd throw that in as a slightly dearer offering.
Please note that these are all very subjective, so please take my personal bias into account (see the “about me” section). When testing, I volume matched first at 1 kHz using an SPL meter and test tones. The XF200 was unequalised.
XF200 $25.00 vs Jive $25.00
XF200 (red) vs Jive (Purple
Jive and XF200 - a lot of similarities
The Jive has the slightly better build with the aluminium shell, but really speaking build (and comfort) on both is comparable. He two have very similar signatures – both have elevated bass, but very clear and clean vocal signatures which are both on the lean side. The XF200 does sound a little fuller, and the bass has a little more presence (the difference is in the mid-bass). The XF200 is also a little peakier or brighter. I actually like both – and this will come down to preference.
XF200 $25.00 vs Alpha & Delta D2 $26.00
XF200 (red) vs A&D D2 (yellow)
Similarly bassy but different mid-range
The A&D D2 is a recent arrival and I am yet to review it – but it is in the same bracket and also advertised as a sports earphone. Build quality is similar – with the XF200 opting for clear plastic housing while the D2 utilises a matte rubbery finish. Both have an ergonomic fit with looped cable guides – but for my particular physiology, the AD D2 fits just a little snugger in the ear. The accessory pack on the XF200 is more complete than the AD D2. Both have similar bass responses relative to their lower mid-ranges, and the main difference is in the upper mid-range and lower treble. The D2 takes a less V shaped approach, and as a result sounds slightly more balanced (still with a bassy tilt). The XF200 is also a bit brighter with more heat up top. Again – difficult to pick a winner and will come down ultimately to preference – bassy and bright vs bassy and a little more subdued.
XF200 $25.00 vs T Peos Rasiel $40.00
XF200 (red) vs T-Peos Raisel (green)
Again similar bass but different mid-range
Two more quite similar earphones. The Rasiel has better build and cable, while the XF200 has better overall accessories and has the in-line controls. Bass is very similar between the two, but like the AD D2 the real difference is in the upper mid-range. Where the XF200 is very bright and clean, the Rasiel tends to be a bit more comparatively subdued in the presence area. This gives a much smoother presentation, but also accentuates the bass a lot more. The result is a lot more warmth. There is still a bit of heat at the top of the upper mid-range / lower treble. Overall these two are quite different despite the similar looking graphs (it is amazing how shifting the upper mid-range rise affects things). Again picking on over the other comes down to preference – bassy and bright vs even more bassy and smooth.
After testing all three – I have to admit that while each of them has their good points, none are really overly appealing to me with their default signatures.
BRAINWAVZ XF200 – VALUE & SUMMARY
The XF200 is an interesting IEM and I have to take my hat off to Brainwavz for their ability to deliver some pretty decent sounding IEMs for very little financial outlay.
The XF200 is well built with an ergonomic over-ear design, and very good in-line controls. The one design fault it has is not having a lip on the nozzle – but this can be easily fixed just by using a little tape (if your favourite tips don't fit). The XF200 comes with a very good accessory package including a quality zipped case and genuine Comply tips (1 pair).
Sonically the XF200 is quite V shaped with a bassy and warm bottom end, yet overall lean and clear mid-range. It is spectacular with female vocals, but a little less so with male vocalists for my tastes.
For the extremely low price of USD 25.00, the XF200 is quite a package and I can see where it could very well attract a following among exercise enthusiasts with its exciting/fun V shape, comfortable fit and on-cable controls.
The problem I have with it is for my own particular tastes there is simply too much bass, and the V is just a little too pronounced. None-the-less it is a good earphone, and for the package it offers, I'd have no problems giving 3.5 stars, despite it not being to my particular tastes.
My thanks once again to Pandora and Prithvi – I really appreciate the opportunities you give us as reviewers.
Pros: Sound quality, power, low impedance, easy to swap in and out
Cons: Lower battery life
For larger (1200 x 800) images, click any picture
INTRODUCTION
A lot of you will see the style and information with this review as being pretty similar to the one I did on the AM2. And the reality is that a lot of the physical aspects are very much the same. So for similarity I can't do much about it. I can assure you however that I performed the same testing, and the same comparisons I've done previously. I reviewed FiiO's TOTL Android based touch screen DAP – the X7 – in early November, and the AM2 module in February.
For my full review of the X7 go here, and of the AM2 go here. And please note that the X7 (with subsequent firmware updates) is now a much more complete DAP than when first released. I can now go artist, album, track, the DAC works beautifully, the blue light can be turned off, the battery indicator seems to be a lot more accurate, and with the release of the AM2 medium power module, and now the AM5 high power module, those with harder to drive cans now have choice for the power they may be looking for.
ABOUT FIIO By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary. FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. They debuted their first DAP (the X3) in 2013, and despite some early hiccups with developing the UI, have worked with their customer base to continually develop the firmware for a better user experience. The X3 was followed by the X5, X1, X3 2nd Gen (X3ii), X5 2nd Gen (X5ii), M3 and X7.
FiiO’s products have followed a very simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.
DISCLAIMER The X7 and add on AM5 module were provided to me gratis as a review samples. I have made it clear to FiiO that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the X7 – both for follow up comparisons and also for my own personal use. It is still my intention to purchase the X7 from FiiO at some stage in the future.
I have continued to use X7 and its modules for follow up reviews, and I recently inquired if I could purchase the devices from FiiO. They have insisted I keep the X7 + modules for my own use. So I acknowledge now that the X7 I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I thank FiiO for their generosity.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and of course the Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
REGARDING THE X7 This review is essentially about the AM5 high power amp module released by FiiO for the X7. For a detailed look at the features of the X7, and a quick run-down on the AM1 (default) IEM module, I would recommend you read my X7 review or indeed any of the 30 something reviews on the X7 currently listed. For information regarding the AM2 module you can ready my review or the other one listed by Alex (Twister6)
This is a purely subjective review of the AM5 high-power module – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own views.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The AM5 arrived in a small black retail box measuring approximately 90 x 120 x 25mm. On the front of the sleeve is a picture of the bottom half of the X7 with AM5 module attached and some text telling you that this is the AM5 amplifier module. On the rear of the box are QR codes which will take you to FiiO’s website or Facebook page.
[size=inherit][/size]
Front of the retail box
Rear of the retail box
Inner metal container
Removing the outer packaging reveals a plain tin box with a nice powder coated finish. Removing the lid reveals a black cardboard envelope, and under this is a foam cut-out with the AM5 module nestled safely inside.
Inside the envelope is a warranty booklet in multiple languages, a full set of stickers (which match the ones from the X7) and 2 replacement screws. The stickers are a nice touch and show FiiO are thinking about their customers. If you’ve brought and applied stickers to your X7 already, the last thing you’d want is a new amp module with no adornments. Although I don’t use them, I can appreciate the foresight.
[size=inherit][/size]
The FiiO envelope containing the accessories
Full package including the AM5
My modified container for the amp modules
As far as the AM5 goes, the other nice thing to note once again is the rubber dust cover/protector over the connection pins. So far everything is a mirror of the AM2 module, and this includes the lack of specifications on the packaging. The good thing is that FiiO have already listed the specs for the AM5 in the X7 section on their website. One last thing before we conclude this section – the case is actually large enough to store 3 modules. So my suggestion for FiiO would be to modify at least one of their releases to give that option. If not, then you can modify yourselves (see above).
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The table below lists most of the relevant specifications. I have (as a comparison) also listed specifications from the default AM1 and also the AM2 module.
AM5 Module
AM2 Module
AM1 Module
Dimensions
~ 64 x 25 x 16mm
~ 64 x 25 x 16mm
~ 64 x 25 x 16mm
Weight
32g
32g
29g
Voltage amplification
Muses02
Muses02
OPA1612
Current Drive
TPA6120 A2
Buf634
AD8397
S/N (H/O)
≥120 dB (A-Weight)
≥118 dB (A-Weight)
≥115 dB (A-Weight)
THD+N (H/O)
<0.001% (32Ω/1 kHz)
<0.001% (32Ω/1 kHz)
<0.0008% (32Ω/1 kHz)
Output into 16 ohms
>800 mW (16Ω/1 kHz)
>350 mW (16Ω/1 kHz)
>200 mW (16Ω/1 kHz)
Output into 32 ohms
>500 mW (32Ω/1 kHz)
>300 mW (32Ω/1 kHz)
>100 mW (32Ω/1 kHz)
Output into 300 ohms
>55 mW (300Ω/1 kHz)
>30 mW (300Ω/1 kHz)
>10 mW (300Ω/1 kHz)
H/O impedance
<0.5 Ω (32Ω)
<0.5 Ω (32Ω)
<0.2 Ω (32Ω)
Peak output voltage
>11 Vp-p
>8.8 Vp-p
>5.2 Vp-p
Peak output current
>250 mA
>250 mA
>250 mA
Channel Separation
>72 dB (32Ω/1 kHz)
>72 dB (32Ω/1 kHz)
>73 dB (32Ω/1 kHz)
Play time
6 hours+
8 hours+
9 hours+
BUILD / DESIGN
[size=inherit][/size]
Front and bottom of the AM5 including ports
Back and bottom of the AM5
Internal connector
Again not much to talk about here – the AM5 has the same dimensions as the AM1 and AM2, and the main differences are internal, but also in their exterior colouring. Where the AM1 has a brushed titanium appearance on the front and powdered titanium appearance on the rear, the AM2 and AM5 are both slightly darker shades, and powdered finished on both front and back. Otherwise they all look and feel identical. The AM2 and AM5 colouring appears to be the same. There is white text on the back of each designating the model number.
[size=inherit][/size]
AM5, AM2 and AM1 - with cap, hex screwdriver and screws
AM5, AM2 and AM1
AM5, AM2 and AM1
Replacing the modules is extremely easy – just a matter of using the small hex screwdriver included with the X7 – undoing two screws, sliding one module out, and sliding the new module in. The fit on the AM5 is perfectly flush, and the only thing very apparent with the AM5 fitted is the change in colour (compared to X7). This of course disappears when used with the cover.
[size=inherit][/size]
Expanded schematics, courtesy of FiiO
X7 with AM5 (front)
X7 with AM5 (rear)
DESIGN – INTERNALS Although you can’t see them, it is probably a good idea to mention the internal electronics. Where the AM1 uses an OPA1612 for voltage and AD8397 for current, and the AM2 uses the Muses02 and Buf634, the AM5 this time uses a combination of the Muses02 along with the Texus Instruments TPA6120 A2. All have impressive measurements for distortion, SNR, output impedance and channel separation. The biggest difference is really the voltage output, and power delivery. As far as power goes, the AM5 is able to produce more than five times the output of the AM1 into 300 ohms, and almost double the output of the AM2 medium power module. It also has a higher peak voltage output.
POWER OUTPUT – REAL WORLD So the specs are listed above, bit what does that mean in the real world? The obvious test was going to be with my HD600, so armed with a 1 kHz test tone, and my trusty calibrated SPL meter, I set about volume matching. To aid quick swapping in this exercise, I simply undid the screws, and left them off – so I could easily slight amp module in place, and then quickly swap as I needed to. The SPL meter was left in a fixed position, and comparative measures taken were (with the 300ohm HD600 – I couldn't get the cups fully sealed – but close enough): AM1 at 77/120 = AM2 at 66/120 = AM5 at 66/120 AM1 at 86/120 = AM2 at 75/120 = AM5 at 71/120
All the above were within 0.2 dB. I then used those measurements playing actual music and recording maximum peaks – and again all were within 0.2 dB.
I also checked the SPL level at max volume from the X7 (120/120) and measured 93.8 dB (AM1), 99.4 dB (AM2) and 99.7 dB (AM5) respectively (A-weighted). So what does all of this mean and why isn't the AM5 showing double the volume? Well simply because the AM2 is able to drive the HD600 pretty well, it isn't exactly a difficult load, and the extra power on tap simply isn't gaining anything. Or is it? The thing we haven't taken into account is peak voltage, and the HD600 is a headphone which subjectively seems to respond to more voltage than current. I should also note that all 3 amp modules supply the same current peak current (250 mA) so maybe this is why the volume appears to have reached its limit in my set-up?
Please note – I didn't bother testing IEMs in this scenario as nothing I have requires a high power module. And I also did not check hiss as it is the same output impedance as the AM2, and also because the general use of this module will be fore higher impedance, lower sensitivity headphones, so hiss won't be an issue.
BATTERY LIFE Although FiiO publishes their own real world tests with their modules, I also like to conduct my own. Using the HD600 with a volume of 80/120 I'd managed 9 hours and 42 minutes life, the AM2 module at 70/120 managed 8 hours and 49 minutes, and the AM5 module at 70/120 managed 6 hours and 29 minutes.
This was with the screen off most of the time, and continuous music playing. The level of 70/120 would give me 65-70 dB average listening volume which actually ties in nicely with my normal listening levels. I should also mention I was using low gain on the X7 with all 3 tests.
Of course this will also be dependent on what else you have running, what headphones you are driving, and also if you are using Wi-Fi, Blue-tooth, or using the screen a lot.
SONICS (subjective) So here we are again, after covering the specs, build, power and effect on battery life. I'll repeat what I said last time - my ears are probably not as sensitive as many of you, I volume match very closely, and I’m subject to the same amounts of potential placebo as all humans. The swapping for the comparisons were as quick as I could make them to preserve auditory memory (same procedure as before – screws undone – swap units, adjust volumes to the pre-set levels, and listen). I varied between rapid swapping (portions of a track about 10-15 seconds) and longer listening periods (a full track at a time).
I used a mix of my usual test tracks - http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks and concentrated mainly on tracks exposing detail, dynamic contrast, sound-stage, bass quantity and vocal quality. This is just a comparison between AM2 and AM5 as the AM1 (whilst is is capable of driving an HD600) is probably more suited to IEMs and portables.
Remember this is pretty subjective!
With the HD600 My first test was sound staging (Amber Rubarth – Tundra). If there is any difference in stage it is very slight, and tends to favour the AM5 just a little in depth and width (really small differences). This could be in the very slight tonality change – in my critical listening I've already found that the AM2 is just a slight hint warmer than the AM5 with the HD600. The AM5 is to me just a hint more vivid / dynamic.
With the bass test the feeling continued – so much so that I had to recheck volume. Nope – still matched. The AM2 just seems little flatter and warmer, maybe a little more relaxed. The AM5 in comparison is a bit more dynamic, more raw and more vivid. I'm not sure if this is the added voltage or simply the tonality difference between the BUF634 and TPA6120 A2, and to be honest I don't care. I really like the pairing of the HD600 with the AM5, and I'm pretty sure I could pick it blind. The two modules are visually identical, and I've been losing track of which is which sometimes, so without looking at the screen I've been guessing and haven't had it wrong yet.
Switching to vocal tracks and its close between the two (they both sound really excellent actually), but I'm still in the AM5 camp. Female vocals still have that slightly more dynamic presence, and there is a little more bass slam with some of my rock. It's really hard to describe overall, but the more I listen the more it is apparent.
If anyone has the X5 original and X5ii they'll know what I mean. The X5 original was every bit as refined and had the same detail as the X5ii, but the difference was in the presentation. The X5 was very neutral, and slightly flat. The X5ii was a lot more dynamic – it sort of takes you along for the ride.
With the T1 So how does the AM5 do with the 600 ohm Beyer T1? Well for starters, at around 80/120 on low gain it's easily getting me my usual listening level of around 70 dB with peaks toward 80 dB. And I'm also noticing the same differences I had with the HD600. Slightly more dynamic and vivid presentation, maybe a bit more holographic in presentation of stage. The differences are small, but if I'm listening to full sized cans, there is no question – I'd be grabbing the AM5 despite the reduced battery life.
GRAPHS Like last time, the last thing I did before the final edit was to hook the X7 up as DAC on my PC, and record the output under loop-back to see how well the overall measurements were on frequency response. Again the one thing I need to stress here is the roll-off in the top end is the filter set-up on the X7 DAC section.
AM1 vs AM2 and AM5. E17K (green) included for reference
Same graph with scale magnified
You’ll see the three curves for AM1, AM2 and AM5 are practically identical. The roll-off you're seeing there is the filter on the DAC, and just so people aren't alarmed, I've seen the same on the all the FiiO devices with DACs engaged (the exception being the E17K), and also the Luxury & Precision LP5 which is the most expensive (and one of the best sounding) DAP/DACs in my possession. If you want to have a look at this graphically, check out the very bottom of my AM2 review.
So this tells us that all 3 amps are pretty linear, and that the output of the AM5 under loop-back is actually really close to the output of the AM2 – and it also confirms the close to 6 dB difference between AM1 and AM5 we recorded earlier using the HD600.
COMPARISON I was pretty happy with the output of the X7 + AM5 combo with the HD600. So happy in fact that I thought it might be pretty close in SQ to the aforementioned Luxury & Precision LP5 – a USD 1300 DAP which is easily the best sounding DAP I've ever heard with full-sized headphones.
So I volume matched both devices with test tones with the HD600 (this is not easy to do – but the meter shows I'm within about 0.2 dB, and they sound exactly the same volume when I'm switching). I then queued the same album and set both devices playing continuously (used adaptors so they wouldn't stop when I unplugged). I could then rapidly switch mid-song and essentially get continuity with both devices.
I chose Sarah Jarosz album “Build Me Up From Bones” because it has such wonderful tonality with the HD600, and also because there is some quite high level detail woven throughout.Now this testing isn't blind – so it's highly prejudiced – and I expected the X7 to come close, but ultimately the LP5 to win out (because it really is one of the most complete sounding DAPs I've ever heard with higher impedance headphones). To give you an idea of how good the LP5 is with the HD600 – it rivals my iDSD with or without a very good tube amp in tow.
I didn't see this one coming – they sound so similar now, that I'd be hard pushed to tell them apart. There is the slightest bit of further depth with LP5 – but it is so minor as to not matter (to me anyway). And that is probably the easiest way to sum up the AM5. It isn't just good with the X7 and HD600 – it is spectacular. I can't believe this $650 player and $100ish add-on module are now combining to be one of the best set-ups I've heard.
CONCLUSION
This will be pretty short and sweet, as I’ve pretty much already summarised everything – but once again to put it in a couple of sentences …..
The AM5 module (like the AM1 and AM2) has a great build, is easy to fit, and measures as well as it sounds. It will cost you some battery life, but it easily handles both my HD600 and T1 with headroom to spare. Paired with a headphone like the HD600 it is quite simply one of the best combinations I've personally heard, and I'd put it in the same league as the Luxury and Precision LP5 (if not an equal, then at least playing in the same ballpark).
At an approximate release price of USD 99.00 there is nothing I can think of which makes me hesitate at all in recommending it. If you already have an X7 and want to take your higher impedance cans to another level, I simply cannot recommend this amplifier module enough.
When I eventually have the funds to purchase the review X7 from FiiO, the AM5 will automatically be the next purchase.
FINAL THANKS Once again thanks to Sunny at FiiO for giving me a chance to try the AM5 before its global release.
For me - I'd take it to a machine shop - it'll take then a couple of minutes - and you have the spare screws anyway. If you like the general signature of the AM1, then AM3 is the next logical step. If you're looking for more power and a warmer sound - then either AM5 or AM2A.
@rusnak666 - depends on what I'm driving. The K5 is simply a window to the DAC - its pretty transparent, and a lot more powerful than the AM5. The AM5 unit is a little on the warmer side.
I tend to like "linear" as opposed to overly warm - especially with the likes of the HD600 and HD800S. And for both of those, I prefer the K5 (personal preference)
Cons: Modules take a while to get used to using, auto module S1 doesn't showcase full capability
For larger views of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
This is going to be a long review – I'll get that out up front. My time with the U6 has been a journey, and I need to cover quite a bit of it – because without understanding that journey, you won't really get a proper understanding of how much my feelings toward the U6 have changed over time.
Preamble As a bit of a preamble, I had an accident with my hearing about 17 years ago. I'd always had pretty good hearing, and even back then I wouldn't classify myself as a loud volume listener. My wife and I were invited to a Jimmy Barnes concert in a closed indoor venue. I'm not a fan, but it was my wife's employer so I was obliged to go. The venue had a low ceiling. Jimmy sang (screamed – told you I'm not a fan) at full volume, and there was nowhere to escape. After two hours it was finally over, and when we got outside I found that I couldn't hear anything but ringing for two days. I knew I had done some damage – I didn't know how much.
Fast forward to today – I am 49, I have permanent tinnitus, and basically nothing left above about 14-15 kHz. The worst thing for me has been the constant ringing. You learn to live with it, but I would give anything to be able to hear pure silence again. Anyway – I've learned to drop my listening volume even lower and nowadays an average between 65-75 dB is pretty common for me when listening to music
Discovering 64 & Adel So with that out of the way, lets take a step back in time again, this time to October 2014. I'd posted 38 reviews on head-Fi, and was still finding my straps as a reviewer. I owned some pretty good triple hybrid IEMs, but nothing I would call “flagship”. For reference I had my full sized T1 and HD600. But I was still looking for that certain IEM which could stop me looking to upgrade.
And then I was alerted to the 1964 and Adel collaboration for multi-BA earphones on Kickstarter, and the by-line “World’s 1st Earphones that save your hearing & your music!”. I duly started researching the technology, it looked pretty sound, and so I ponied up USD 480 + freight for the U6 – drawn to the idea of the balanced signature. It was more than I'd ever paid for an earphone – but given my love for music, I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity of something that could safeguard the hearing I have left for the future.
Getting the U6 / First Impressions Just before Xmas 2015 the U6 finally arrived (I think it was November). You can imagine my excitement at finally getting them. I didn't have the MAMs (manual modules), just the stock modules. They were gorgeous – fit was perfect – so I plugged them in, turned on my X3ii, and was floored. I couldn't believe I'd spent the money I had, and the tuning just left me cold. The bass was amazing – textured, extended, and wonderful. The treble was different to what I was used to – smoother, but still had great detail. But the mid-range was simply not to my taste. Female vocalists didn't have that euphony I crave, and the transition from lower to upper mids just sounded flat. Over the next 2 weeks I listened as much as I could, but the feeling remained. Disappointment doesn't come close to what I was feeling.
So after a year of waiting, and less than 2 weeks of having them, I packed the U6 up and sent it 18000 km around the world to a friend to get his impressions. His comments mirrored mine, and he was brutally honest – calling the mid-range souless. So I got the U6 back, and over time I continued to use them, and slowly began to get acclimatise to their signature. I'll add at this point that I was waiting for the 64 Audio custom case and accessory pack – at which stage I would sell them and recover my costs.
Time – the great leveler But as luck would have it, my case was lost in transit, I continued to use the U6 whilst awaiting a replacement, and slowly I gained a better understanding about my own physiology, and also my brain adjusted to the U6's sonic signature along the way. I now know that I have a particular sensitivity to the area between about 1.5-3 kHz (all humans do – it's just that mine is particularly acute in this area). And if I bumped the upper mid-range at around 2 kHz, the U6 sounded spectacular. I now knew these were destined to be a keeper.
The benefits of being a reviewer – intro to Steve and Stephen It was about this time that my friend Alex (Twister6) put me in touch with Steve (who you guys know as Canyon Runner), and this eventually led to being able to talk one-on-one with Stephen Ambrose. This of course led to getting to trial the MAMs, measuring them, and also having in depth discussions with both Steve and Stephen and understand the technology better.
And here we are today – with me reviewing the 64 Audio Adel U6 (not a review sample – my personal pair), and hopefully giving you some insight into how they sound. And also my thoughts on why I think the combination of the Asius technology, and 64 Audio's tuning is an evolutionary step in personal audio.
ABOUT 1964 EARS / 64 AUDIO 1964 Ears was started by Vitaliy Belonozhko, a sound engineer who has been working with musicians and production companies in the Northwest for more than a decade. Not long into his career he discovered the advantages of IEMs over traditional floor "wedges”. After trying out a few brands it was apparent to him that a better and a more affordable solution to in-ear monitoring was needed, and 1964 Ears was formed in 2009.
Why “1964”? Because to Vitaliy that was a breakthrough year – both in terms of some landmarks occurring in music (Stones, Beach Boys, Dylan), but also because it was the birth of the first In-Ear Monitor by Stephen Ambrose. Since then Vitaliy and his team have been producing, refining, and developing both custom and universal monitors for both musicians in the industry and also for ordinary consumers. Recently 1964 Ears was shortened to the now familiar 64 Audio we see today.
I pulled the next bit straight form the website, and I think it sums up 64 Audio quite nicely:
Everything about that special year (1964) was life changing, and it left an indelible mark on everyone who lived it or later learned of it. 64 Audio’s sole focus is making that same mark when it comes to personal audio. It was Syd Moore who once said, “disregard for the past will never do us any good. Without it we cannot know truly who we are”.
We know who we are.
ABOUT ASIUS TECHNOLOGY / STEPHEN AMBROSE Fifty years ago, Stephen Ambrose invented the world's first wireless In-Ear Monitor technology (IEMs). Already a professional musician at age 12, he began modifying swimmer's earplugs with tiny speakers and clay and completed his first In-Ear Monitor in 1965. This was the first time full spectrum high fidelity sound was delivered within a fully sealed ear canal by an In-Ear Monitor. Touring for decades with hundreds of performers including Stevie Wonder, Simon & Garfunkel, Diana Ross, Rush, Steve Miller, Kiss and many others, Stephen was able to perfect and commercialize his IEM designs and was the sole provider of in-ear monitors to the professional market for well over a decade.
Greatly concerned over the increased risk of hearing loss due to the use of personal listening devices, Stephen began extensive research with grants from the NSF and NIH and pioneered new scientific discovery into hearing loss (specifically from the use of IEMs). To solve the problem, he invented and patented a revolutionary “second eardrum" called the Ambrose Diaphonic Ear Lens (ADEL™) which absorbs harmful in-ear pressures.
In early 2014, Asius and 1964 EARS, joined to design and manufacturer the 1964ADEL line of earphones.
A NOTE ON SERVICE One of the things I've learned with audio, and especially since becoming more popular with my reviews, has been that manufacturers make mistakes, components are not always perfect, and no matter how good a company is, products can have defects. The measure of the company is how they deal with those situations. I want to mention this specifically so I can give you a feel for my own experiences with both 64 Audio and Asius.
When I ordered the U6, I realised there would be a wait, and because I was traveling to the US, I tried to arrange with 64 Audio to pick up my U6 from friends in the US. Unfortunately I missed the window for the delivery, but 64 Audio made sure they arrived, and my colleagues forwarded them to me. When it came to the case (being sent later) – it was lost in transit, so I exchanged a couple of emails with Alex at 64 Audio, they checked the situation out, and we arranged a replacement. At around the same time I had a cable fault with one of the connectors, sent them a photo, and they arranged immediate replacement. I actually sent the faulty cable back so they could check it out – but I wasn't obliged to do this. 64 Audio were impeccable in their communication, they arranged the replacements, and at no stage did they make onerous demands. They simply wanted to make sure that I was happy with the product – and I am. That is great service.
I could also say the same about Steve and Stephen at Asius. With the first trial MAM unit, when testing I over-rotated the dial and broke one of the modules. No recriminations, they just wanted to know how it happened (so they could correct it for subsequent models), and they wanted to get me replacements as soon as possible so that my experience with them was up to my (and their) expectations. I also wanted to know more about the tech, so they've made themselves available, taken their time to listen, explain, and gone out of their way to ensure the explanations are being understood. Since then I've skyped them a couple of times, and may assist them with a couple of videos in future to help answer some questions (which I've already had answered – but the information might be good for others).
Both companies are passionate about what they are doing, but more importantly they care about their customers. And that to me is both reassuring and very refreshing.
DISCLAIMER I purchased the 64 Audio Adel U6 as part of the KickStarter campaign for the KS price. This included the MAM module and A1 auto module. I have since been given the B1 module to include in the review (gratis). I have no other affiliation with either 64 Audio or Asius, and any work done (Spreecast, reviews, or future videos) is unpaid, and being done voluntarily on my part – because I believe in the product, and want to review it.
The 64 Audio U6 I am reviewing today can be currently purchased from 64 Audio's website for USD 899.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and of course the Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be skeptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
I've now had the Adel U6 for around 6 months, and in the time I've had it, I've used it with practically all the sources at my disposal – including FiiO's M3, X1, X3ii, X5ii, X7 (AM1, AM2 & AM5), L&P's LP5, L5 Pro and L3, my iPhone 5S, and also most of my portable and desktop sources. In the time I've had the U6, the only changes I've observed have been adjusting to the different modules, and also slowly becoming more used to the U6's default signature. I've noticed no “burn-in”, and testing with different amplifiers has not revealed any marked sonic improvements when blind tested (the U6 is relatively low impedance and high sensitivity, and IMO requires no further amping with a decent source).
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES When the U6 initially arrived, it was just with the small portable 1964 Ears carry case, and a few accessories. It wasn't until later that the actual case arrived – so I'll simply describe some accessories I've been given so far. As far as I know, if you purchase from 64 Audio, the default total package includes:
The U6
New 64 Audio 3D printed case
1.2m detachable cable
Comply eartips in S, M, L
Cleaning tool
Dehumidifier (for the case)
ADEL auto module
[size=inherit][/size]
The U6 custom case, and initial zip carry case.
The carry case was handy - but ultimately a little small
The 64 Audio custom U/A series case
The case is the big difference here, and I'll try to go through it in a bit of detail. Normally if I'm given a case this size, I never use it – too big to carry around. I use the 64 Audio case all the time despite it's size. The case is totally 3D printed and measures a fairly hefty 115 x 70 x 35mm (excluding clasp and hinge). It's more like a smallish pelican case. It has the 64 Audio logo embossed on the top. It is very hard, very solid plastic, and should do an extremely good job of protecting your investment.
Inside (top cover) is a place to hold two extra sets of modules, a shirt clip, and cleaning tool. The module holders are brilliant – because I've recently received the B1 modules, so I have a place for 1 set (fitted) and the two spares. Ideal! There is also a soft piece of foam strategically placed to fit over the compartment holding the U6.
[size=inherit][/size]
Dehumidifier, shirt clip, cleaner, S1 module and tips
The case, inner pocket and dehumidifer
Fully loaded and ready to go
The bottom section has a split compartment to house both ear-pieces. Each of these has a slit (for the cable). Inside is actually a rubber holder to ensure there are no hard edges putting pressure on the IEMs. The cables then run to a split T pole arrangement so that you can wind the cable around. Situated around the pole are 4 raised slots for the 3.5mm jack. So no matter how you end up winding, you have a handy slot to inset the jack, and secure the cable. The whole set-up takes very little time to pack or unpack, is very protective, and just really well thought out. The icing on the top is in the clasp itself, and also in the case (its not evident until you actually look closely). The top cover has a small ridge around the rim. The bottom of the case has a small recess/groove. When the case is closed, it is essentially air-proof/moisture proof. To assist with the pressure of opening or closing, the clasp houses a small pressure manual valve. It opens when the clasp is pulled open, and engages when it is snapped shut. Really clever.
[size=inherit][/size]
Cable winding mechanism
Tongue and groove for airtight seal
Sealing vent on the clasp
I could not ask for much more regarding the included accessories. Some may miss a 3.5-6.3mm adaptor or an airline adaptor – but most of us already have spares – so I don't regard this as an oversight at all.
I’ve listed the main specifications for the 64 Audio U6 below.
Type
6 x balanced armature driver IEM
Driver configuration
2 x low, 2 x mid, 2 x high
Crossover
3-way passive
Current Retail
From $899 (64 Audio direct website)
Freq Range
10 Hz – 20 kHz
Impedance
22 ohm
Sensitivity
115 dB SPL @ 1mW
Jack
3.5mm gold plated, right angled
Cable
1.2m, removable (2 pin)
Weight
18g incl cable and tips
Isolation
-18 db (with S1), -10 db (with B1)
IEM Shell
Hypoallergenic hard acrylic
Body shape / fit
Ergonomic, cable over ear
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
In the graphs below – you’ll see the channel matching (which is unbelievably good and testament to the QC going into driver matching by 64 Audio). This will also give an idea for the base sound of the U6 with both the S1 and B1 modules.
What I’m hearing (subjective) – noted before I ever had these on the measurement bench.
S1 (normal default)
Pretty good bass response – relatively flat and pretty well extended but with a mid-bass rise. The bass is quick and well textured.
Very clean and relatively coherent mid-range which to me slightly favours the lower mids, and is a bit gentle in the upper mid-range around the presence area (2-3 kHz) which I am particularly sensitive to. So for me this flattens the transition between lower and upper mid-range, and female vocalists lose a bit of euphony. Has a tendency to sound flat to me.
Well extended but smooth lower treble which falls short of excessive sibilance (for me) yet remains detailed with sufficient air for clarity.
There is a bump in the lower treble, but the overall feel for me is one of balance (bordering on slight warmth), rather than a V shape.
S1 module and frequency graph
B1 CSD - very clean
B1 module and frequency graph
B1 (new module)
Compared to the S1 you immediately notice the cut in lower bass, and a little in bass impact as well. But the bass is again very clean and coherent, and its speed is really good. Sounds cleaner overall than the S1.
Mid range remains similar to the S1 – I like the B1 a little more than the S1, but still prefer to EQ the mid-range a little in the 2-3 kHz presence area. Overall though still clean and coherent. Fantastic with male vocals and still quite enjoyable with female artists.
Treble is practically the same as the S1 – I notice no difference.
BUILD & DESIGN When I first saw the 64 Audio Adel U6, I was surprised it wasn't a lot bigger. Six drivers into a tiny shell, and managing to keep the housing quite svelte – 64 Audio has done a wonderful job here. The earphone casing might look shiny and plasticy, but the shell is actually a hypoallergenic hard acrylic. So without being able to state for sure – they should stand the test of time quite nicely. My U6 measures 22mm across, is 16mm tall (from the cable exit to bottom of the shell), and approx 9mm deep (main housing). The shell itself is seamless, and there are no ports. The inner face is smooth and rounded and extremely comfortable to wear, with no sharp edges or protrusion. On this internal face the serial number is also printed – in small embossed type.
[size=inherit][/size]
External face - with MAM fitted
Internal face and nozzle
Quad bore + view of internal face and serial
The nozzle protrudes from the inner face by 15mm, and is angled slightly forward and upward. The actual nozzle piece itself is 7mm, has a very slightly raised ridge for tip retention (no real lip), Is quad bore and just a shade over 5mm in diameter. Normally I'd be pretty grumpy not having a lip – but because of the generous length, and the slight ridge, I've had no issues with my preferred tips coming off.
The outside face is smooth and flat, and very simply printed with “ADEL” on the right earpiece and “1964 EARS” on the left. At the forward apex of the front face, directly opposite the nozzle, is the hole for the Adel modules. This is 6mm in diameter, and if you blow through it (with no module), you can clearly feel your breath on the other side – it essentially opens a hollow conduit from the outer face to inner face.
[size=inherit][/size]
Looking down - very smooth and "hard angle" free exterior
2 pin connector and socket
Adel module removed revealing pathway from rear to nozzle tip
At the top of the body is the 2 pin socket for the removable cable. On the U6, the cable is not recessed, but the connection seems pretty sturdy to me. The cable is 1.2m long, has approx 6cm of memory wire, and consists of two sets of twisted pairs (one from each earpiece), which stay separate from earpiece to jack through the entire cable length. This is perfect for anyone wanting to re-terminate to balanced. The Y-split is just simple heat-shrink (with a clear piece of plastic above it for a cinch), and below it the two twisted pairs join to become a twisted sprung quad cable. The jack is gold plated, right angled, and has excellent strain relief.
[size=inherit][/size]
The very good stock cable
Heat-shrink Y split and clear cinch
4 conductors (2 x twisted pair) from IEM to jack
I cannot fault a single part of the build or design at this point – it really is impeccable.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION I touched on the comfort earlier. The shells are very smooth, beautifully rounded, and basically disappear for me when worn. What is better is the extra length of the nozzle and also the angle because it means I can get a more secure seal, and with a wide variety of tips.
So far, I've been able to fit and use successfully – the default Comply tips, Spin-Fits, Sony Isolation tips, and even Shures standard tips (takes some stretching but they do work). Ostry tips fit fairly shallow, and with no lip come off easily, as do Spiral Dots. There should be enough options to suit everyone, just know that without a lip on the nozzle, if you have a shallow fitting tip, it may become lodged in your ear.
[size=inherit][/size]
Mathew (14 year old son) showing the fit
Pinnacle P1, Primacy, Ul and A83
The secret to the fit is the nozzle length and angle
Worn over ear the U6 sits well inside my outer ear, so lying down and listening is never an issue, and I’ve been able to sleep with them intact. Cable noise worn over ear is very slightly microphonic if the cable is worn loose, but cinched or tucked under clothes it is amazingly silent.
Isolation is advertised as -18 dB for the S1 and -10 dB for the B1 auto modules. The MAMs vary depending on how open the port is. I was asked to do a test (by PM) involving listening with the S1 with 80 dB background noise – so I simulated it with a youtube video and my monitors measuring room noise at an average of 80dB. I then used the U6 without music – and you could pretty clearly still hear the ambient noise (dulled but still present). Playing music and the background noise becomes a quiet drone – with the MAM's you can close the port and dial it back even further. I still wouldn't use these for air travel – but they provide enough isolation for use in a semi-noisy environment (and no issues with office etc).
[size=inherit][/size]
Ostry tips (left) came off, but spin tips (right) were perfect
Sony Isolation and Shure Olives (you have to really force them)
Default Comply = perfect for me
So for me anyway – fit, comfort, and isolation are pretty close to perfection again.
ON CABLES
This is simply an aside, and is just here in case I'm asked. I notice other people have asked about after market cables, and their effect on sound. I'm a cable agnostic – but since I had some available from another couple of pairs of IEM's I've borrowed, I thought I'd check them out (measure them). The first ones I tried were the silver, and immediately I thought I could hear a difference. And there was! The silver cable was about 1 dB louder. When I matched the frequency response volume for volume – the response was to all intents and purposes identical from 20-30 Hz through to about 5 kHz.
[size=inherit][/size]
All cables measured together
Silver vs stock
Stock vs stock reversed - this could be audible!
There are some variations after that – but given that:
the variations are still only about 1 dB until you get to 9 kHz
beyond about 7-8 kHz with real music, you aren't really going to notice minor differences
my coupler is probably responsible for some upper end differences
I'm pretty safe in saying that what I thought I heard was placebo. This was repeated for silver plated copper and another generic copper cable. The biggest difference was when I plugged the stock cable the wrong way around (bass drop off – see graph), and this was repeated with the other cables too. So my personal advice – if you want an after-market cable, grab one for the aesthetics rather than the sound. If it works for you and you think you hear a sonic change – just check first to see if you haven't reversed the polarity. And with the stock U6 cable – this means the coloured dots facing forward (at least on mine anyway). Need to clarify this point in case anyone gets the wrong impression - the correct way for the cable to be inserted is with coloured dots toward the rear of the IEM - ie facing upward when worn.
THE MODULES The stock S1 and B1 ADEL modules are physically identical externally, with the B1 being black and the S1 being silver. The are 8-9mm tall, 6mm in diameter, have two bands on the body (with rubber inserts) to hold the modules in place, and a top cap or “lid”. This is ideal for removal – you just slide your finger nails under each side and smoothly pull. The very top cap has a central relief port. I've already described (briefly) the sound differences – so let's move to the MAMs (or Manual Adel Modules).
[size=inherit][/size]
Left to right - MAMs, B1 and S1
MAMs, B1 and S1
MAMs closed and open
These are also silver, have the same physical appearance as the auto modules, but instead of the fixed cap you have a turnable dial. With this dial, you can basically go from fully closed to fully open – there are a set of 6 ports under the dial. When fully wound down, the ports are open, and when up the module is closed. It takes 10 quarter turns (two and a half full rotations) to go from fully closed to fully open.
When using the MAMs, they are labeled right (red dot) and left (blue dot). You need to make sure you the right one for each earpiece. Note for Steve and Stephen – my dot have almost already come off – I'm not sure if this is purely because they were early prototypes or not – but something you should look at (better markings). Both dials rotate the same way – forward and down opens, back and up closes.
B1 vs S1
B! vs S1 vs MAM open and closed
The MAMs change the sound quite drastically – so I've graphed each quarter turn going from closed to open so you can see some effects. These measurements are consistent and repeatable.
The first full rotation – closed, to Q1 is very subtle, then after that Q2 and Q3 drop the bass a lot and hump the lower mid-range. The second full rotation remains with a lot lower bass again, but slowly rising while the lower mid-range slowly moves forward. The last 3 steps of the rotation (toward fully open) head toward quite neutral bass (still with a drop off in the sub-bass), but the mid-range bump now flattens, and slowly moves toward the upper mid-range. At fully open, it is close to my ideal signature with a nice flat transition to 2 kHz and a gentle slope down after that. Does it solve my mid-range issues – most assuredly!
[size=inherit][/size]
First full turn of MAM module from closed in quarters
Second full turn of MAM module in quarters
Final turn of MAM module in quarters to fully open
When first using the MAMs I got pretty lost with getting the correct tuning. I'd encourage anyone ordering them to experiment, and give yourself a good chance to get used to the changes, because it can be pretty daunting losing some of that lower bass. Over time though – you will adjust, and for me it is worth it. I'll cover this in the sound section. When you first start out with the MAMs – go watch this video from Vitaliy at 64 Audio. It is quite simply brilliant and the easiest way to understand how to use the MAMs. I ended up using the humming method and was able to equalise and dial in my ears pretty much perfectly. And if you have asymmetrical canals (like me), being able to dial in each MAM perfectly is incredible. With practice you'll get to know exactly where your sweet spot is. Mine seems to be one almost fully open, the other about a turn and a quarter from open.
So which module? For isolation you can't go past the S1, but the sound can end up a little bassy. I still use the S1 though, and often just a little EQ to get to where I need to go. If you want a nice open sound and don't like tinkering, the B1 is great – and I think the module a lot will gravitate to. The black looks really cool too. For those who want the most control – the MAMs are brilliant. I use these most often.
One more tip for the modules – if you think you aren't getting much change – take them out, seal them with your lips and blow very gently into the internal cavity (you'll be able to very faintly feel air from the other side). I don't know why – but sometimes this seems to free up the module a little. I noticed this when measuring both the B1 and the MAMs. Not sure if it flexes the ADEL module slightly – but afterwards I get much more consistent results – both measuring and listening.
THE ADEL TECH (in laymans terms) I thought I’d attempt to explain very briefly my understanding of the ADEL tech, and what it is supposed to do. I’ll also explain how it has changed the way I listen.
When we use an inner ear monitor, we do things that are very different from listening to open headphones or speakers. Firstly we close and seal the canals, and Stephen’s research has indicated that this leads to a couple of issues. By sealing the ear canals, we actually turn our heads into a big amplifier. If this sounds weird, try doing any exercise (to get your heart beating), and then plug your ears, listen and then unplug your ears again. Yep – you’ve just amplified things enough to hear your internal body functions. On top of that, when we seal the ears, and play sound directly into them, Stephen has been able to deduce (in frequency vs phase tests) that not only are the sound waves amplified, but we also create pneumatic pressure. Our ears have an inbuilt defense mechanism called the acoustic reflex which works really well to dampen loud sounds so that we don’t feel the full force. But typically what has been happening is that in listening to IEMs, we are triggering that acoustic reflex early, which is dampening the sound, so we turn the volume up, which further triggers the acoustic reflex – and the cycle continues until the reflex is overwhelmed, and we are putting sound waves at dangerous levels into our inner ears, and hearing damage ensues. The other side effect of dampening the sound is that when the mechanism is triggered, our ear drums are pulled tauter, and results in degradation of sound.
So can this be fixed? Enter the ADEL technology. What ADEL does is provide a membrane which absorbs some pneumatic pressures so that the acoustic reflex is not triggered too early. As a result we get to a safe listening level at far lower volumes. And without the damping effect, the sound should also be much cleaner, and more like listening to open cans or speakers. A side note though – if you listen loud, ADEL will not be able to stop you damaging your hearing. Some user sensibility is essential.
But let’s take a look at my own situation. I use IEMs a lot. I also suffer from permanent tinnitus. I’ve trained myself to listen to music a lot quieter over the last 10 years or so – and my average listening level (depending on environment) would be around the 65-75 dB mark. Even though I do listen relatively quietly, I have noticed that wearing IEMs for a long time still tends to irritate my tinnitus (causes it to flare up or intensify), and I’ve always worried that I may be causing further damage.
Since getting the ADEL modules and U6, and especially since getting the manual modules, I’ve noticed that my measured listening level is more in the 65-70 dB level with the U6, than in the 70-75 dB. And when I volume match at my normal listening levels, and then listen at the same dB level – the U6 tends to sound slightly louder to me. The other thing I’ve noticed is that with the U6 I am often lowering the volume rather than raising it. With my other IEMs, it is often the other way around. I've also noticed that my tinnitus stays a lot better behaved – even after extended use. I know a lot of things can affect it – but I do believe the U6 with ADEL technology is helping.
For me the differences aren’t huge (in SPL) but at low listening levels, the U6 simply sounds clearer. I know this is anecdotal, but it is genuinely what I am noticing. Your own mileage may vary. For resource to look further into ADEL, I recommend the following:
Again – I have no affiliation with Asius, and can only tell you what I am experiencing.
SOUND QUALITY OK – lets get down to where the rubber hits the road. You guys know how at first I didn't particularly like the sonics (mid-range), but how I've adjusted over time. I debated how to present the next bit to you and in the end decided to simply use the B1's (for consistency). I used the FiiO X7 with AM2 module. Tips used on the U6 were the standard included Comply foam.
The following is what I hear from the 64 Audio Adel U6. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7 was around 23-25/120 which was giving me around an average SPL around 65-70 dB and peaks at around 75-80dB (A weighted measurement from my SPL meter). Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
General Comments I already described the default sound of the U6 with B1 briefly early in the review. I've now had almost 4 months with the U6 so I've had more than enough time to adjust to them, and had the B1 module for around a week. Now when I use this module, the first things that come to mind are that it is very balanced, still a slight hint of mid-bass warmth, but with a very relaxed (although well detailed) upper end. Mid-range is extremely good for male vocals, but I do find that the transition from lower mids to upper mids – particularly for my female vocalists – is good, but not excellent (for my personal tastes). I can achieve “great” by switching to the MAMs though, or adding a very slight bump in EQ between 2-3 kHz.
Really clear in the vocals, and that sense of overall balance in the mix is really good. The funny thing with this is that usually I like a slightly brighter overall presentation, but I've become really accustomed to the U6's slightly more relaxed presentation. And the U6 is not a bright IEM – but there is enough in the lower treble that you are getting really great resolution overall – snare clicks, fingers on strings, cymbal decay – nothing is missing, but its just not highlighted like a brighter IEM like the 2000J.
Amber Rubarth’s binaural track Tundra is my staple for measuring depth and width of stage as it provides good cues and you can get a really accurate sense of distance with different earphones. The U6 sounds really open with this track, but the sense of distance is still not massive. I've heard a lot of people say the U12 stage is massive, but I'm not getting this with the U6. Distance is at the periphery of my head – which is normal for a good iem, but it is the sense of openness and overall imaging which is really excellent. Everything exists in a very clear and defined space, but unlike some IEMs, it actually feels as though I'm sitting in the actual studio. Very natural presentation, and enveloping rather than massively spacious.
“Dante’s Prayer” is next and I use it because I know this live track well, and I know (from video) where the real placement of instruments is on stage. The miking never gives a real sense of depth in the performance, but can often give a good idea of imaging. There is a nice sense of location, and the contrast between piano, cello and Loreena's vocals is very good. This track is actually miked reasonably intimately and that comes through clearly with the U6. It is simply reflecting the music. My main reason for using this track though is that it's a live performance and the applause at the end can be quite immersive with a really good set of headphones (though few earphones have so far achieved it). The U6 gave me goose bumps the first time I critically listened – it wasn't a recording – I was there. Very immersive, very natural, and rivalled my HD600 for this feat. Stellar.
The last track in this section is Amanda Marshall’s “Let It Rain” and I use it for two reasons – it has been miked to give a holographic feel (which the U6 flat out nails – very spacious), and it’s a good track to test sibilance (I know it is in the recording). At my normal listening levels, the sibilance is there, but not overly highlighted. The other point I'd make with this track is that the mid-range (being mainly female vocal based) is slightly muted. I know that either using the MAMs or my EQ bump can transform it though.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: “Bleeding Muddy Waters”, “Royals”
I use three main tracks for bass tests, and the first is usually Mark Lanegan’s “Bleeding Muddy Waters”. If an IEM nails the overall feel (dark and broody), whilst maintaining quality and texture of Mark's vocals (gravelly rough) with no bass bleed – then it is a winner. The U6 manages almost everything – great tone, no bleed, and marvelous texture. Probably the one thing missing is a bit of impact – but by now I've got used to slightly less bass quantity – and day by day I'm enjoying this new type of presentation more.
Lorde’s track “Royals” is my sub-bass impact test – and the U6 + B1 actually manages to surprise with very good extension and even a bit of rumble. It isn't head-shaking by any means, but its there, and its extremely good quality. Ella’s vocals are very clear (again they need just a little lift for my tastes). Actual mid-bass slam should be mentioned as well. It's not visceral, but there is a decent amount there. Really impressive.
Female Vocals Tracks used: “Aventine”, “Strong”, “For You”, “The Bad In Each Other”, “Howl”, “Safer”, “Light as a Feather”
I'll get it in the open now – the U6 with B1 isn't my ideal for female vocals (which make a large part of my library). For me they just sound the tiniest bit subdued. There is no hollowness for Aventine -which means they are tuned really well – but for my tastes, they are just ever so slightly recessed.
I'm going to break my own rules here and go ahead and give them the EQ bump on the X7 – simply because I know how good they can sound. So it's a +2dB at 2 kHz and +1 dB at 4 kHz (combined it gives the curve I need). I go back to Obel, and the sweetness is there again, with the female vocalists overtones just jumping more into the foreground.
London Grammar is practically perfect – Hannah's tonality is great with this setting – it's like she's in the studio with me. And when Feist and Florence kick in with the added bass on their tracks you get to realise how dynamic the B1 module really is. Fantastic contrast between the depth and speed of mid-bass and the soothing (and soaring) upper mids.
Norah is the star of the show here though. Smooth, sweet and husky/sultry at the same time. This is the type of presentation which has me once again thinking “end-game”. I just wish it was the default tuning – but it is pretty easy to accomplish – and fortunately I've never been hung up on using EQ to get the signature I like.
Male Vocals Tracks used: “Away From the Sun”, “Art for Art’s Sake”, “Broken Wings”, “Immortality”, “Hotel California”, “Keith Don’t Go”, “EWBTCIAST”
Back to EQ off for the next section. I don't need it. The U6 isn't just good with male vocal rock – it is truly exceptional. Vocals are deep, textured, and able to convey a real sense of emotion. Guitar is effortless and perfectly balanced with enough mid-bass slam to make classic rock seem natural.
Acoustic music (Eagles / Lofgren) is phenomenal and it is clear that any string based instruments in particular are a joy to listen to. The sense of space again with live music is just so natural sounding. I slipped Seether's acoustic cover of Pearl Jam's “immortality” into the mix this time, and the clarity and texture of male vocal presentation is highlighted again. Shaun's vocals are raw, emotional, and powerful.
My final test is always Pearl Jam though – Vedder has always been my litmus. Great presentation and fantastic balance. Cymbal decay is very good. Eddie's vocals are deep and well textured. This is more than a pass.
Other Genre Specific Notes I'm not going to go into depth with this section – except to say that there isn't a genre I haven't enjoyed with the U6 – and that includes electronica. Even a bit of Trance or Trip Hop has enough overall bass to be very enjoyable.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The U6 is not a hard load to drive, and amping hasn't shown me that I'm missing anything. With my iPhone 5S I only need around 25% volume for my listening level, and the 22 ohm impedance means that most sources (with up to 3 ohm output impedance) should be fine, and not muck around with the multi-BA configuration. With my X7, I'm only using 25/120 with the AM2 and it is by no means a super powerful amplifier unit.
About the only time I really have felt a gain with using an amp has been the X3ii and E17K combo – and that is purely about tonality. Adding +4 treble on the E17K really brings out the upper mids and lower treble a bit more – which really suits my personal tastes.
SPECIAL SOURCES?
So were there any sources which really stood out for me with the U6? They all sounded really good – it is simply an easy IEM to pair. But there is one particular source I just love with the U6, and again it has to do with overall tonality. Luxury & Precision's L5 Pro and L3 both have an EQ setting “Jazz” and it clearly brightens the tone a little – especially around the upper mid-range. With either the S1 or B1 modules I just engage this setting and it is pretty much perfect for me, no matter what the music is.
COMPARISONS This was such a difficult one to try to think through because I don't have a lot of higher end IEMs. The hardest part was volume matching simply because the U6 sound slightly louder at the same measured SPL. So this has been the one time I've disregarded proper volume matching (because of the effect of ADEL).
So for this exercise I've chosen my other dual BAs – the q-Jays and Alclair Curve, and matched as best I could. For the U6 this time, I used the MAM's fully open. For a source, I used the L&P L3 – and used with both no EQ and with the Jazz setting.
U6 $899 vs Curve $249
64 Audio ADEL U6 vs Alclair Curve (new)
64 Audio ADEL U6 vs Alclair Curve (new)
The build on both is impeccable, but for fit and comfort, the ergonomics and smaller size of the Curve are ultimately a winner. Both disappear when fitted but the Curve is simply one of the most comfortable IEM's I've ever worn. The Curve is also much better on isolation – regardless of where you sit the MAM on the U6. With the L3 on no EQ, the Curve have noticeably far more bass impact and reach lower – but the U6 sounds both cleaner and quicker. The mid-range on both is very similar (strikingly actually) and the bigger difference I think is that the Curve overall sounds a little warmer, has less treble (smoother but darker). The U6 also sounds a lot more open and more spacious – yet the overall stage size is similar. For default signature here – I prefer the U6's more open and cleaner signature. If I engage the Jazz EQ it definitely sweetens up the U6's upper mids, but the Curve also gets some really nice gains here. Ultimately I prefer the sonic signature and balance of the U6 – but it highlights again for me how good the Curve is, and how it really needs more recognition.
U6 $899 vs q-Jays $400
64 Audio ADEL U6 vs Jays q-Jays
64 Audio ADEL U6 vs Jays q-Jays
I reviewed the q-Jays a while ago on Headfonia, and immediately afterward arranged to buy the review set (yep paid real money – that is how impressed I was with them).
The build on both is again stellar, but again for fit and comfort, the smaller size of the q-Jays ultimately comes out on top. The q-Jays are much better isolaters as well (at least as good as my old Shures), and again this is the price you pay for using the ADEL units. But again the ADEL units give you that spacious, clear and open sound – so it really is a trade-off.
This time it is the U6 which has slightly more bass, but both sound very clean, quick and clear. Mid-range is almost identical but the extra lower treble of the q-Jays really lifts them. Note here though, some have found the q-Jays to treble happy, peaky and a little sibilant. I don't so YMMV. Despite the slightly brighter nature of the q-Jays, the U6 still sounds cleaner and more defined – again I think this is a lot to do with ADEL. I still slightly prefer the mids on the q-Jays overall though.
Like the Curve – engaging the EQ lifts both IEMs, but I think it benefits the U6 more than the q-Jays. I can live with the q-Jays without any EQ at all – again it is a signature that has grown on me slowly over time.
In both cases, would I say that the U6 is worth 3-4 times the Curve or twice the U6? The answer would be no if you were basing purely on bang for buck. But even with diminishing returns, the U6 still represents value to me, and if I was in the same buying position initially, but this time armed with the knowledge I have now, I'd still buy them. The only question for me would be whether I would upgrade to U10 instead – and that will be a question to hopefully answer at another time.
64 AUDIO ADEL U6 – SUMMARY
Sorry for the long review – I really couldn't do this any other way. I hope some of you have stuck with me along the way and that it has been somewhat useful.
The U6 by itself is a very good IEM with an excellent acrylic build, small form factor (for the number of drivers) and very good accessory package. Fit is excellent and with the longer nozzle I have no issues getting a great seal, and with very good comfort as well. It has a pretty flat signature with decent extension at both ends, and good texture and tonality. For me personally I'd like a bit more top end, and a slightly better transition between lower and upper mids (personal preference).
Add the ADEL technology, and you get a lot more control on tuning, a more open and spacious sound, and a very much cleaner and quicker presentation. In my case it also helps reduce fatigue (my tinnitus is much better behaved), and I can listen at lower volumes without compromising music quality.
At a current RRP of USD 899, the U6 is not a cheap IEM, and if you factor in the MAM module you're looking at a 1K IEM, so it constitutes a considerable investment, but one which I would make again without hesitation. The ongoing development of the technology will (IMO) yield even more benefits as time goes by.
If I have any regret at all – it is just that I didn't have a chance to also compare the U10, because although I can tailor the U6 to my ideal signature, I would have liked something which was s closer to my ideal out of the box. I'm going to get Steve/Stephen to talk to Vitaliy at some stage and see if I can borrow a U10 for a month and do a review comparison – as I do think ultimately it could hold the secret to my own personal end-game (the U6 is already practically there).
4.5 stars from me – practically perfect.
FINAL THANKS I'd just like to take the opportunity to mention and thank Steve and Stephen at Asius – I look forward to seeing your progress gentlemen – and especially the bubble tech. And also Vitaliy, Alex and everyone at 64 Audio. You are indeed masters at what you are creating. Thank you for the exemplary service, and allowing me the pleasure of the experience of your product. Absolutely no regrets.
Well I can conclude that I prefer the B1 to the S1 even in noisy environments after a day riding in the back coast to coast. Yes I heard more airplane noise. But I heard more music too. In comparison with the Klipsch X-10 I realized that while those earphones do a great job at isolating there is just less going on in the music. Less of that stuff that grabs your ears and brings a smile to your face. The stuff that reminds you why you are listening to music in the first place.
I want to make one more observation. I have a set of Massdrop Fostex TH-X00's at home and I love them. Now I understand why, or better, now I have heard why. They reproduce the nether bass regions without coloring or obscuring the higher frequencies. As pleasant as the S1 modules are at producing a full robust enveloping bass sound they commit the sin of obscuring some higher frequencies.
I'm the same opinion on the B1 - it just sounds better. I have a series of long-hauls coming up in about 4 weeks. Planning to take the U6's and try them with a pair of QC25 on the outside. Should be an interesting experiment.
Pros: Sound quality, build quality, visual appeal, open sound, value, channel matching, ability to change signature with covers
Cons: L/R markings hard to see, 2-3 kHz peak (can be sharp with vocals)
For larger views of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
As a hobbyist reviewer, the one thing I've noticed with virtually all the manufacturers I've dealt with is a huge passion for what they do, and also a desire for continual improvement. I've been dealing with Lee from Venture Electronics for a bit over a year, and have so far had the pleasure of reviewing VE's Zen, Zen2 ear-buds and Runabout amplifier. I also have in my possession (and in my long review queue) the Monk and Monk Plus ear-buds, the Enterprise amplifier, and the Asura 2 which I am reviewing today.
I bring up the comment on passion because of all the people I've interacted with so far, Lee has been one of the most engaging and passionate about his products. He's also brutally honest and expects the same in return. For me – as a reviewer – I love this approach.
I'd like to bring up two more things before we skip to the review itself. First is a shout out to my friend Tamal (RedJohn456) who initially introduced me to Lee (zhibili06). The second is a thank you to Lee for his patience. As my popularity as a reviewer has grown, my queue has grown longer. Couple that with a recent surge in hours with my real job, and a recent catastrophic data crash (lost a months worth of review progress), I am now severely behind in my review queue. Lee has been brilliant throughout the whole saga – and I really appreciate your patience my friend.
ABOUT VENTURE ELECTRONICS Venture Electronics (or VE) is a 3 year old audio company based in Shenyang, Liaoning in the Peoples Republic of China. I was able to ask Lee a little about the company, and he has been very open and approachable – something I love to see when dealing with a manufacturer. It really shows a lot about a company when they show pride in their own achievements, and are so open about sharing information with their customer base.
VE is relatively small (for now) with 5 employees, and currently have a very small product line (Zen, Asura and Monk ear-buds, Duke IEM, Runabout portable amp, and Enterprise statement tube amp).
I asked Lee about their core business, and he said they were primarily an internet company, and had developed more products than were currently on offer, but for now their current product range covered enough to cater for immediate development. Their goal long term is “to have the best budget and hi-end gear”, and it was refreshing to see some frank and honest comments in reply to some of my inquiries. I’m going to quote one of Lee’s replies, because it really does add to my impression of VE as a company.
“We see our fans, not just as moving wallets. I see our budget gear (like the monk) as a walking ad for our brand, among our online community (people who love earphones, because they mainly they love the ART the earphones can deliver, like gaming, movie, anime and stuff. We believe the Zen is the best ear-bud in the world, and as we can sell the monk for cheap then it might go viral and get more attention to the other products. We believe to be the best hi-fi company, we need to have the best of the best gears, not only budget ones. If we only do budget, people will have a false image of us not being serious enough, so the idea is very simple”
And to close, I asked Lee about VE’s mission statement or values statement, and the answer I received made perfect sense – “keeping it real”. As I’ve furthered my correspondence with him – I can reassure anyone reading that this is a value very much in evidence.
DISCLAIMER The Asura 2 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to Venture Electronics that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the Asura 2 for follow up comparisons. I do not make any financial gain from this review – it is has been written simply as my way of providing feedback both to the Head-Fi community and also VE themselves.
I have now had the VE Asura 2 since around January 2016. Normal RRP is USD 78.00, and can be purchased on VE's Ali Express site
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. Click here for a summary of my known preferences and bias
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
I’ve used the Asura 2 from a variety of sources, but for main body of this review, I’ve used it primarily with my FiiO X3ii combined with the E11K amp, my iPhone and also the FiiO X7 with AM2 amp module. In the time I have spent with the Asura 2, I have noticed no change in the overall sonic presentation – except for when I have changed variables such as covers.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
[size=inherit][/size]
Accessories
The stability fins - small and large
Standard foams (thick), do-nut (thick) and Monk Plus (thin)
The Asura 2 arrived in a courier bag – so no retail packaging. I did get some accessories though, and as far as I know purchasing the unit should include:
Foam covers
2 sets of ear-hooks (small and large)
A shirt clip
Zippered clamshell case
Better look at the stability fins (fitted) rear
Better look at the stability fins (fitted) front
The round zipped clamshell case (about 85mm in diameter and 50mm deep) has a mesh inner compartment and quite rigid outer shell. It is reasonably pocket friendly, and very sturdy. The foam covers you should receive are the thicker full face covers and also the thicker do-nuts. You may also receive the much thinner new covers which are now included with Monk Plus (I will try to find out from Lee),
Edit - Lee contacted me and advised all Asura 2 will receive a free Monk Plus and the extension pack (foams etc). A fantastic add-on bargain
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (From VE)
Type
Open dynamic ear-bud
Driver
15.4mm dynamic
Frequency Range
8 Hz – 25 Khz
Impedance
150 ohm
Sensitivity
110dB +/- 5dB (1mW)
Plug
3.5mm gold plated, right angled jack
Cable
1.2m, TPE outer coat, 256 x 0.04 4n ofc copper
Weight
Approx 15g with single full foam covers
IEM Shell
Polycarbonate / hard plastic
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the future.
Raw frequency response (no covers) and channel matching
Very clean CSD apart from the 2-3 kHz ridge
The frequency response graph was created with no covers, and the body pressed lightly to the coupler to simulate a normal fitting. Further in the review I’ve added comparisons to other VE ear-buds, as well as taking measurements with covers on and off.
What I’m hearing (no covers):
Clean and quick bass, mostly mid-bass with a big sub bass roll-off (with no covers fitted), but still with good overall balance for an ear-bud.
Clean and very clear mid-range, quite forward in the upper mid-range and has good vocal clarity
Upper mid-range seems to have a peak, which can be a little strident without covers, and is particularly apparent with female vocalists and any instrument hitting the 2-3 kHz area.
Detailed treble – a little peaky in my personal sibilance triggering area (around 7 kHz)
Good overall balance, if a little bright sounding.
Once again channel balance is pretty amazing (see graph). Lee told me previously that they switched OEM factory and the proof is in the measurements. He’s very happy with the consistency of the results, and you can see why when looking at the care taken with driver matching. Any small variations could also be the seating on the Veritas coupler (really hard to get consistent with ear-buds).
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN Like the recently released Zen V2, and the newly released Monk Plus, the new Asura 2 continues use of the “smoky” clear polycarbonate shell so you can actually see the internals. Reaction to this new shell has been very positive and I really like the aesthetic appeal of the new casing. The shell is practically identical to the Zen 2 casing. It has two circular rows of ports (total 56) close to the outer edge of the main face. The rear of the ear-bud is ported on two opposite sides (two small and a single larger port), and there is also a rear port running parallel to, and along the full length of the cable exit.
[size=inherit][/size]
Front face of the Asura 2
The slightly smoky translucent shells
Side on
The entire ear-bud is approximately 33mm long from the top of the outer face to tip where the cable exits. There is no strain relief from the cable exit, but given my experience with Lee's other ear-buds (solidly built cable), the fact that the cable is internally secured and also primarily worn cable down, this should not be an issue.
The cable is very pure copper (256 x 0.04 4n ofc) with a black TPC outer jacket and each channel is separate and in side by side configuration – ideal if anyone wants to re-terminate to balanced. The cable is reasonably flexible, but can be a little unruly (photographing it at times was problematic). Overall though practical, solid and ideal for the product range placing. The Y split is pretty small, made of flexible rubber, and has no relief (but again none is needed). There is no cinch. The jack is right angled (my personal preference), 3.5mm, gold plated, and has excellent strain relief. The jack is also smart-phone case friendly, easily fitting my iPhone 5S with case intact.
Y split
Right angled jack
So the Asura 2 looks identical to the Zen 2 in almost every aspect except for the cable colour. The only critiques I would have is that the L/R markings on the earpiece stems are very hard to see, and also it would be nice to have the actual model printed on the stem of the earphone.
FIT / COMFORT Since I've been testing the various ear-buds from VE, I’ve been using ear-buds a lot more than I used to. I knew from past experience that fit and comfort were going to be pretty good, and they are. The difference this time is that where I don't tend to use hooks or covers with the Zen 2, my own personal preference requires them for the Asura 2 (sonically). This does give me more helpful options for correct seating, and a more consistent sonic experience.
I now have both large and small stabilisers from VE, and have to admit I very much prefer Lee's stabilisers than the ones I was using from Dunu. These are sturdier, and far easier to get a consistent fit. Basically they sit over the housing, with the fin part angled upward and forward. The ear-bud body sits normally in the concha cavum (tucked inside the tragus and anti tragus), and the fin lies alongside the anti helix and basically locks against the concha cymba. This drastically aids stability, and if you are careful, allows you to angle the Asura 2 perfectly to meet your individual preference. It also allows a slightly better seal (by widening the body) which also affects bass response.
The other alternative we'll cover shortly is the use of foam covers and there are a lot of different options which all affect the sonics a little or a lot. With either the covers or fins (or a combo of both) in play, I find the Asura 2 very comfortable and overall fit for me is pretty snug. As far as isolation goes – it is an ear-bud – so any isolation is minimal.
POWER REQUIREMENTS I was a little more than outspoken about some claims of the original Zen / Zen 2 needing beefy amplification to really shine. Yes, they are 320 ohms, but their sensitivity allows them to get to very listenable levels without a lot of additional amplification. However, after receiving advice from Lee regarding trying the Zen2 recently with his full sized tube amp (the Enterprise), I have to admit that he may be right about them scaling a little. I haven't worked out yet whether this is the extra power or the sonic signature of the Enterprise.
So I set about trying some of my portable sources to see subjectively what I thought sounded the best, and at what power level. The Asura 2 is 150 ohm and has a sensitivity of 110 dB so it should be easier to power than both Zens.
As I did with the Zens – I armed myself with my trusty SPL meter, set all of my DAPs and DAP/amps as close as possible to being level matched within 0.5 dB (not easy with an ear-bud), and then played the same track through each piece of equipment. Here is what I found – the track used was Dire Straits “Sultans of Swing” – which I often use to test for dynamics and detail. For this test I used the full covers, no fins.
FiiO X3ii – 45/120 low gain. Plenty of dynamics, good bass response, does not sound anaemic in any way.
FiiO X3ii + line-out to the E17K (0 gain, 20/60 on pot). No significant change from X3ii solo. Sounded exactly same as X3ii by itself.
FiiO X3ii + line-out to the HVA (hybrid valve tube amp). I can't tell you all the setting here as the HVA has an analogue pot and there aren't any clear markings. I did use the X3ii variable line out to avoid clipping the valves. Again – no major change in dynamics – but the HVA has slightly fuller body, and it appears to round the upper mid-range response a little (less sharp).
FiiO X7 + AM2 (low gain, 42/120). No significant change from X3ii + E17K in dynamics. X7 is slightly smoother - again mainly in the upper mid-range.
FiiO X5ii – low gain, 43/120. Plenty of dynamics, good bass response, good detail.
iPhone 5S – approx. 6 (40%) clicks of volume. Again plenty of dynamics, good bass response and detail level. Marginally thinner overall.
FiiO M3 (tiny $55 DAP) – 20/60 volume. Surprisingly one of the vest sources and again because it is slightly warmer and tends to soften the upper mid-range treble. It doesn’t have the overall resolution of some other DAPs, but has a very good tonality which complements the Asura 2 very well.
So as far as source goes, the Asura 2 is going to sound good out of almost any source you throw at it.
COVERS, FINS & GRAPHS
Here is where things get a little technical, and where I explain what the covers can do to the overall signature of the Asura 2.
Remember when reading this section:
It's hard to get consistent measurements with the coupler and ear-buds. I took all of these pushing the ear-bud face gently against the coupler to simulate interaction with an ear, but it can't be accurate compared to reality of different physiology.
Variations in outer ear shape and size will change measurements completely
Whilst the measurements do match reasonably well to what I'm hearing, the only way to tell is to experiment with different combinations.
[size=inherit][/size]
Asura 2 - different covers
Tick do-nut and thick full cover
Thinner Monk Plus covers - ideal for Asura 2
We've already seen how the natural (no cover) Asura 2 looks (red line on graph below), so let's look at using the full foam thicker covers and also the do-nuts. What this does for me is allow a much better seal. The result is the yellow line on the graph. Two things immediately change – the bass immediately becomes a lot more evident (including sub-bass), and the peak in the upper mid-range flattens. For me this really helps take the peak out and puts a little more distance on vocals – but it also makes the Asura too thick sounding and overly warm. Some of the character I really like is gone.
So the next is to use the thin covers from the new Monk Plus. This is much better. The bass is raised a little without losing the character of the Asura 2, and more importantly again that peak is gone. Green line on the graph.
The trick though is to experiment with what you personally like. I've even tried covers over the top of the fins, and covers on covers. Like the Zen 2, for my tastes I don't think the Asura 2 needs much tweaking, but I do quite like the thin covers, and I think it would be good if Lee could include these in the future.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the Asura 2. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). For my testing I used FiiO's X7 flagship with the AM2 amplifier module. I used just the thin covers from the Monk Plus because they suit my ears the best. I could have tested the Asura 2 naked (without covers), but I don't think that would have been fair, as without them, it is too sharp for my personal tastes. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and most can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Thoughts on Default Signature I’ve covered this in the frequency response section, but this time with the thinner covers what I'm getting is a little more bass enhancement, but a little less peak in the upper mid-range. The end result is still a quite balanced overall signature with good bass response (again mainly mid-bass), very clear and clean vocals, and enough detail in the lower treble to keep cymbal splashes interesting.
Overall Detail / Clarity Tracks used: Gaucho, Sultans of Swing
I was actually quite surprised with both tracks because despite the roll-off in the sub bass, there was still enough mid-bass impact to keep the Asura 2 reasonably warm, but still very detailed. On Sultans there is a still a lot of high level detail coming through – and that includes cymbal decay, and snare taps. The nice thing is the depth of detail in mark's vocals, but still getting plenty of crunch and edge from the guitar.
Sound-stage & Imaging Tracks used: Tundra, Dante’s Prayer, Let it Rain
Tundra is always a starter for me and covers imaging, depth and width. There is a reasonable amount of both width and depth – but I don't think the Asura 2 is as spacious as the Zen. Everything is projected out to the periphery of my head-space – but it doesn't really extend beyond. Imaging is good though – very clean and accurate.
Dante’s Prayer is my test for imaging (I know the position of instruments in this recording) and also for immersion (the applause at the end). The first noticeable thing is the really nice cohesion and tonality of cello and piano, and while the covers have dropped some of the emphasis on Loreena's vocals, now it all sounds very natural. Cues are good, and again the stage is intimate rather than expansive. Immersion during the applause section is excellent with a real feel of the crowd being around me.
The last track is Amanda Marshall’s “Let It Rain”, and I use this as a test for both vocal sibilance (there is quite a bit in the recording) and also for testing spatial ability. The Asura 2 really delivers well with this track, and the 2-3 dB drop at 7-8 kHz seems to have really helped with the sibilance I heard with no covers. The detail is still really spectacular, and the sense of the music playing around me is brilliant. A really nice presentation.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: Bleeding Muddy Water, Royals
Muddy Waters is my usual test for bass texture and also bleed. It’s a dark broody track with a lot of feeling in Mark’s vocals, and can be quite visceral in its intensity with some transducers. The Asura 2 actually really delivers quite nicely with this track. Great mid-bass thump, and although the track appears warmish, it is still really clear. It doesn't have the overall sub-bass impact I can get from hybrid IEMs – but nor should it (it's not a sealed unit!). What I'm getting instead is a thoroughly enjoyable well balanced overall presentation which hits low enough to make it utterly pleasurable.
Up next was my sub-bass test (Lorde’s Royals) – and as expected the sub-bass is pretty light, but it is indeed present, although way back in the mix. Ella's vocals are nicely balanced, and although the impact isn't here the way I am used to, it's still pretty good. The Asura 2 is never going to be a bass monster, but it handles bass well enough for me.
Female Vocals Tracks used : Aventine, Strong, For You, Human, The Bad In Each Other, Howl, Safer, Light as a Feather, Don’t Wake me Up, Ship To Wreck.
Its amazing how much a difference the foams make with the Asura 2. If I had the covers off, I'd be struggling with that dominant 2-3 kHz peak, and instead what I'm getting is a really nice transition from lower mid-range to upper mid-range. It's amazing how much my tastes have changed since owning the 64 Audio Adel U6 as well – because I'm starting to appreciate this sort of transition and balance a lot more now – where in the past I'd be tending to wanting a little more tilt into the upper mids.
This however is an almost perfect balance, and tracks like Angus and Julia's “For You” just flow effortlessly. There is enough sweetness in the vocals to lift the soul and lose me in the music. Any time this happens you know it is a very good tuning. Cilmi's “Safer” had me wanting to go through the rest of her album, and Norah was simply sublime.
This is a tuning I can definitely live with. Nice job Lee.
Male Vocals Track used: Away From the Sun, Art for Art’s Sake, Broken Wings, Hotel California, Keith Don’t Go, Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town.
Again – the change with the foams has transformed the Asura 2, and the great thing about it is bringing some bass to the forefront, whilst retaining richness and fullness through the vocals.
Rock anthems (Away from the Sun) soar whilst still maintaining an edge to guitar. Classic rock from 10CC and Jethro Tull maintain perfect balance between clarity, detail and impact. 10CC's “Art for Art's Sake” was a perfect example of absolute balance between vocals, bass guitar, drums, keyboards and lead guitar. This is rock done right.
With all types of rock the Asura 2 also showed hidden strengths, and the tonality with guitar didn't matter if it was Breaking Benjamin smashing it, or the Eagles creating a masterpiece with the live version of Hotel California.
My final test as always was Pearl Jam, and whilst it wasn't quite the same immersion as with the Zen 2, the Asura 2 still creates a sound-scape which is very easy to simply get lost in. Perfect capture of Eddie's vocals, and beautiful balance with cymbal upper detail and the guitar through the centre binding it all together.
Other Genres The Asura 2 is another all-rounder from VE, and covers all genres beautifully with the possible exception of bass heavier trance, hip-hop, and some electronica – where low bass impact can be quite important.
For everything else though, the Asura 2 is a very easy earphone to enjoy, and that doesn't matter whether it is Portico Quartet with Jazz Fusion, or a full classical orchestra.
One of the stand outs was Joe Bonamassa's live Blues performance from the Vienna Opera House. Again – a perfect blend of vocals and guitar – but this time with the ambience of the famous venue coming through. Immersive, enthralling, and utterly convincing.
EQUALISATION Really speaking I wouldn't try to EQ these too much, but they do react well. I wanted to see how euphonic I could get Agnes Obel's “Aventine” (which can tend to be a little “honky” at times, so I raised the low bass, cut some of the mid-bass, and then raised the 2 kHz slider by a fraction. All of these changes were no more than a couple of dB – and the result was amazingly good – so they react really well if you are inclined to tinkering.
I also tried raising the sub-bass sliders to give tracks like Royals a little more heft, and while I could definitely coax a little more out of the drivers, they are never going to be sub bass monsters.
COMPARISONS The obvious questions here will be how the Asura 2 compares to both the Zen V2 and also the Monk Plus. So I graphed them the best I could, and them compared the best combination of covers I could find with each. In the scenarios below I've shown both earphones naked (no covers) and then in what I think is the ideal configuration
Asura 2 vs Zen 2
[size=inherit][/size]
No covers Aura 2 vs Zen 2
Asura 2 with thin cover vs Zen 2 with no cover
The A/B rig
These two are practically the same with one glaringly obvious difference – the mid-range. The Zen 2 dips a little at 2 kHz (and has slightly stronger bass), whereas the Asura 2 has that big rise at 2-3 kHz. As a result, the Zen 2 is much better balanced, has a wider stage, and is more refined. The Asura 2 (without covers) is just a little too forward for me and ends up being a little strident.
Add the thin covers though and it is amazing how well the Asura 2 mimics the Zen 2, and although it sounds a little thicker with the covers, the overall improvement is marked. Would I simply swap the Asura 2 with covers instead of the Zen 2 though? Well you'll get most of the overall tonality, and if you prefer covers rather than naked, it is an easy way to get 90% of what the Zen 2 offers. But in the last 10% there is some real magic – evident in spatial presentation, detail, and simple tonality. If I have the choice between both – I'll be taking the Zen 2. If I was on a tighter budget though, I'd thoroughly recommend the Asura 2.
Asura 2 vs Monk Plus
[size=inherit][/size]
No covers Aura 2 vs Monk Plus
Asura 2 with thin cover vs Monk Plus with thick covers
The A/B rig
You haven't seen my review on the Monk Plus yet, so I'll try not to give too much away.
The Monk Plus naked follows a very similar pattern to the Asura2, but has a far bigger dip in the mid-range, and bigger peak through 2 kHz. Rather than volume matching the vocals at 1 kHz for this comparison, it was easier to simply match the bigger peaks, then look at the differences. And the main difference is that the Monk Plus is very thin through the mid-range, and has higher comparative peaks. This makes it really quite strident without covers – enough to say that for me, the Monk Plus definitely needs blunting.
So the true comparison is the Asura 2 with the Monk Plus new thin foams, and the Monk Plus with full foams. The result has the Monk Plus having a much better bass response, including a surprising amount of sub-bass, and a comparative rise at 2 kHz. The Asura 2 still has a better vocal transition between lower and upper mid-range, and for me anyway remains the better tuning, but I can see how those who like a bit more robustness in the bass and a bit more sweetness in the upper mids are going to love the Monk Plus. For $5 USD it is an absolute killer.
ASURA 2 – SUMMARY
First up I want to take the chance to thank (again) Lee for giving me the chance to listen to VE’s entire line-up, for answering my many questions, and for giving me the chance to look at some special stuff which is coming in the future.
I didn't get to hear the original Asura, so my review is taken from the perspective of comparison to the newer Zen 2 and Monk Plus only. The Asura 2 shares many of the traits in build and tonality as its other siblings. The shells on all 2 are very similar, with the Zen 2 having the slightly better cable. As far as tonality goes, the Asura sits very much in the middle of the Zen 2 and the Monk Plus, and I do like how Lee has positioned his whole line-up.
It comes with a good selection of covers and the ear-hooks, and you will want to play around with combinations to get your ideal sound. Unlike the Zen 2, I do think the Asura 2 needs covers to tame its upper mid-range. When you get to the sweet spot though – pure magic! The Asura 2 is also easy to drive, and for the low value it is being pitched at, is an easy recommendation.
Brilliant sound, brilliant value – 4.5 stars.
FINAL THOUGHTS For those seeking the pinnacle, to me it remains VE's Zen 2, but the new Asura 2 is in the upper echelons, and I dare say for some will even be preferential (depending on your overall tastes). For those who start with the Monk Plus and are looking for an extra level of refinement, the Asura 2 is a natural progression forward.
And Lee – the new thin foams need to be included with the Asura 2 IMO. They are Ying and Yang – once completes the other.
Very detailed and informative review as usual, and for earbuds in particular i find the 'fit' section covering the different foam covers and ear adapters additionally useful. I often read Brooko's reviews even on items I am not really interested in, becasue they are so informative
@Brooko, I have an Monk Plus (but without the Full foam that you recommend for them), but I have the opportunity to take an Asura 2. Do you think that the Asura is a big step up from the Monk Plus? Is worth for the value? Thanks!!
For my preferences - yes, although you can have most of the VE line match your personal preferences simply by playing around with cover and fin combos. I just like the Asura 2's transitions through the mid-range a little better. I'm also one of the guys who actually prefer the original Monk to the Monk Plus. The pinnacle though (if you really like the Asura 2) will eb the Zen 2. They are a very special earbud.
So I guess it will depend on your budget. If funds are tight - then get yourself an expansion pack, and play with combos to get ideal signature. If you have disposable income and want an upgrade to the Monk Plus - the Ausra 2 represents that next step for me.
For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
Playing around with the FiiO A1 over the last few weeks has taken me back a few years to when I first joined Head-Fi. My first amplifier back then was the FiiO E7, and naturally I was hugely proud of my new stack (iPod Gen 4 > lineout > E7). And I marvelled at the changes – the increased clarity, detail, and soundstage! Over the years, I’ve come to realise that the perceived benefits at the time were mostly because I wasn’t volume matching at the time, and most of the improvements I was hearing were simply due to the fact that I was listening louder with the amp.
Fast forward five years, and I’m much more aware of how we process sound, and how perception can alter what we think we hear. For a long time I didn’t carry an amp once I’d learned the difference between what I could actually hear, and what I thought I was. But in the last year I’ve started using one again (when necessary), and there are some superb low cost amplifiers out there – check my reviews for the E17K and Q1 for a couple of low cost options.
FiiO has been a pioneer in introducing affordable amplifiers – particularly for music lovers who may be starting on their journey. And one of the great things about their entry level options is that you can experiment whilst still on a reasonably tight budget. One of their most popular amplifiers for this subset (beginning audiophiles) was the E5, which later upgraded to the E6. The A1 is the third iteration of this popular micro amplifier – so how does it stack up, and is it worth it?
ABOUT FIIO By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary.
FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. Today, their range includes DAPs, portable amps, portable dac/amps, desktop dac/amps, earphones, cables and other accessories.
FiiO’s products have followed a very simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.
DISCLAIMER The A1 portable amplifier that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to FiiO that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the A1 – for follow up comparisons. The FiiO A1 can be sourced from Amazon for approx. USD 30. FiiO's A1 product page
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. (This is to give any readers a baseline for interpreting the review).
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
For the actual listening part of this review I used the FiiO A1 in situations I would imagine beginners might be looking for insight / amplification. So I paired it with my iPhone 5S, with the FiiO K1 and with the FiiO X1 and M3. This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
FURTHER NOTES
FiiO are in the process of rebranding/renaming their portable amp line up, and some of it does get confusing. A few years ago, they actually listed a small desktop speaker amp as the A1 – so if you see different references for it, just be aware that this review is about the micro amp.
Volume matching was done with a calibrated SPL meter and test tones (1 kHz) when required for comparison.
Frequency response and distortion measurements were taken using a relatively cheap Startech USB soundcard. I combined this with a licensed copy of the ARTA measuring suite. The soundcard has a calibration adjustment applied – so that it measures dead flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
WHAT I WOULD LOOK FOR IN A BUDGET PORTABLE AMP I thought I’d list (before I start with the review) what I would imagine beginners are looking for in a budget portable amp. This is useful to remember when looking at my reasoning for scoring later in the review.
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The FiiO A1 arrived in FiiO’s cheaper retail packaging – a clear, red and black plastic retail display box measuring 87 x 153 x 19mm. The A1 is displayed clearly through the clear plastic upper section. The rear of the package has some specs and other information in English and Chinese.
The retail package front
.... and rear
Opening the outer cover reveals a plastic inner tray housing the A1, and a black and red accessory box. The accessories include:
2 clear plastic clips and one plastic top (no clip)
1 x short (7cm) 3.5-3.5 mm interconnect cable with right angle jacks (FiiO’s L8 mini to mini)
1 x long (75cm) 3.5-3.5 mm interconnect cable with straight jacks
A USB to micro-USB recharging cable
Warranty and instructions
A1 and accessory box
Rear of the box
The inclusion of the 2nd clip is a smart idea – just in case you end up breaking one. And the top without a clip is a nice finish for those who prefer not to use a clip. The inclusion of two interconnects is a good choices as well. The shorter one is ideal for pairing closely with a stacked portable source, and the longer one if paired with the A1 on a belt (while the source is safely in a pocket), or if used with a laptop, and you need more space/reach.
[size=inherit][/size]
A1 accessories
Longer interconnect
Short interconnect and USB cable
The amazing thing with the accessories is how much you get for the extremely low starter price. FiiO always seems to deliver very good accessories at the lower price points. The entire package is practical, covering everything you would initially need for the A1.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The tables below list most of the relevant specifications for the A1. For the purposes of this exercise I have also included comparative information on Brainwavz similarly priced AP001 amp, and because I discuss it later – FiiO’s A3 amp.
Specification
FiiO A1
Brainwavz AP001
FiiO A3
Approximate price
USD 30.00
USD 25.00
USD 60.00
Dimensions
42 x 41 x 9 mm
38 x 38 x 13 mm
91 x 56 x 13 mm
Weight
20g
16g
92g
Output Impedance H/O
<0.2 ohm
Not stated
<0.2 ohm
Max Output Power @ 16ohm
78 mW
Not stated
450 mW
SNR
>100 dB (A weighted)
Not stated
>105 dB (A weighted)
THD-N
0.05% (1 kHz)
Not stated
0.004% (1 kHz)
Adjustable Gain
2 settings (2nd = -5 dB)
N/A
-3.8dB/11.7dB (15.5 dB)
Bass Boost
Yes – 2 levels
N/A
Yes – 2 level
Max Output Current
50 mA
Not stated
92 mA
Peak Output Voltage
4.52 Vp-p
Not stated
8.6 Vp-p
Battery Capacity / Life
160 mAh / 13+ hours
120 mAh / 12+ hr
1400 mAh / 16+ hr
Recharge Time
< 1.5 hours
~ 2 hr
< 4 hr
BUILD / DESIGN The FiiO A1 is rectangular shaped with a central aluminium alloy body, and hard rubber/plastic top and bottom panels. The edges are nicely rounded, and the top is recessed to allow fitting of the plastic clip. At the bottom left is a micro USB charging port, and bottom right is the auxiliary input.
The front of the A1 & view of the bottom ports
Rear of the A1
Headphone out and volume+ EQ buttons
On the top panel from left to right are the on/off/EQ button, volume down and volume up buttons, and the 3.5mm headphone out port. This port is gold plated and very snug (headphone jacks are well captured). In the centre of the on-off/EQ button is an LED light. This light indicates the functions of the A1 – glowing red when charging, blue when in operation, and green when charging is complete. When in operation, the blue LED is solid blue for the default setting, flashes slowly one pulse (continually) when set to EQ1, two pulses when set to EQ2, and three pulses when set to EQ3. If the light is slowly pulsing red, it means that the battery is almost depleted. Very easy to follow and understand.
[size=inherit][/size]
[size=inherit][/size]
FiiO A1 - a look inside
Very tidy PCB
And a look at the opposite side
Internally the A3 is very neatly laid out, and for amplification uses the TPA6130A2 amplifier chip. For the gain and bass boosts this is complimented with 74HC4052PW＋OPA2322AID.
HEAT / POWER There is no heat build-up at all with the A1 even under load, and this is probably due to the output being relatively weak.
The digital control seems to consist of around 50-60 steps – with the low increments being around 1.5 dB. The last 30 steps seem to be about 0.5 dB each. I ran a full level signal through my sound card to measure total volume under loopback, and this gave me a measurement of close to 147.5 dB. I then added the A1 at full volume, and this increased the output to approximately 152 dB – or a total gain of 4.5 dB. FiiO actually publishes their measurements at a shade under 4 dB so it is nice to know we’re in agreement.
In real terms this means at full volume we’re not even doubling the volume level – so FiiO’s advice of recommended headphones in the 16-100 ohm range is probably pretty close.
[size=inherit][/size]
A1, M3 and X1 - output matches size
Size comparisons
Stacking indications
As another test, I used my FiiO X1 (100 mW into 16 ohms), plugged in the 320 ohm VE Zen 1 earbuds (which the X1 actually drives pretty well at around 50% volume), played an Amber Rubarth track (definitely not a victim of the loudness wars), and dropped the volume to 40/100 to simulate a weak source. Then I added the A1 at full volume, and the increased amplification was very slight. And the issue with this is that my iPhone at 80% power will actually handle the Zen 1 by itself quite nicely. With the FiiO X1 the same track needs about 50% volume, and even the FiiO M3 (50 mW into 16 ohms) does passably well at 50% volume (30/60).
Now this is driving a load that FiiO wasn’t aiming at anyway – but it doesn’t negate the fact that most sources nowadays have no issues driving headphones in the 16-100 ohm range anyway. So where does this leave us with the A1 – if its primary use as an amplifier is negated? Well I’m pleased you asked actually – so let’s take a look in the next section.
OTHER FEATURES / EQ OPTIONS / THD The A3 does have a few nice little tricks which makes it worthwhile. The first of these is its very low output impedance – which means it is an ideal solution if you have a source with high output impedance and headphones with low impedance (imbalance in damping ratio). The ideal damping ratio is greater than 1:8 – so this is where the A1’s very low 0.2 ohm impedance can help. This rule of thumb isn’t always the case – but it’s a good guide, and can help if you have headphones which will change their frequency response if damped incorrectly.
The second area the A1 can really help is if pairing with another device which does not have volume control. The K1 which I will review in the near future is a very small and cheap DAC/amp from FiiO – but it has no volume control. Pair the A3 with the K1, and you will have quite a nice combo for effectively controlling the sound from your laptop or tablet. And if you’re out and about, and find it handier to control the volume of your DAP (presumably safe in your pocket or bag) by the use of a small device which clips onto your belt – then the A1 may become your new best friend.
[size=inherit][/size]
Volume control for the FiiO K1
EQ measurements
Close ups of EQ curves
But the biggest feature the A1 has is its built in EQ. This works in 4 distinct stages. The first or default provides around 4 dB gain above your source output – and it is essentially pretty flat with a very slight roll-off in the sub-bass (this is well under 0.5 dB so it’s negligible – you won’t notice it). Going to bass boost one adds some gradual warmth beginning slowly in the mid-range and gradually rising through the mid-bass to culminate in a +4bB rise from 100 Hz down. The second boost setting is quite cleverly implemented. This drops everything from about 2kHz forward down by 3 dB, and then raises slowly back to 0 at ~ 600 Hz, and then slowly raises the mid-bass and sub bass to the + 4dB level. This adds a lot more bass, but by dropping the upper mids and treble, it does it unobtrusively so that it minimises the chances of clipping. The third “boost” setting is actually volume attenuation. It returns to the default flat signal, but drops the signal down by -5 dB. This is handy if you have very sensitive IEM’s or headphones, and need to attenuate the signal to allow yourself more headroom, or finer control on volume. One more push then returns you to the default setting again.
[size=inherit][/size]
Volume steps 0.5 dB
Distortion and SNR measurement 300Hz
Distortion and SNR measurement 1 kHz
But what about the amp itself – is it clean? And the answer to that is yes. FiiO have implemented this pretty well. The distortion plots I measured actually show similar SNR at around 100 dB and THD between 0.01-0.02% and THD+N at 0.02% as well. FiiO showed theirs as being 0.05% (higher than my recordings) so I’m wondering if they took their readings with bass boost engaged. Anyway – the A1 measures very clean, and more importantly also sounds very clean.
BATTERY LIFE FiiO rates the play time on a full charge at around 13 hours, and recharge at an extremely low 2 hours. I managed to get 12 hr 42 min and 13hr 23 min with the two full attempts I made. Both were under load – the shorter of the two measurements was actually with my q-Jays. Recharge time is indeed an extremely rapid 2 hours.
SONICS AND PERFORMANCE (COMPARISONS) So how does it sound? If you’re looking for me to comment on bass, mids, treble – you’re reading the wrong review. I’ve already shown how it measures pretty much perfectly flat with no EQ added, so nothing is boosted. If I compare with a very neutral amp like the E17K, I’d say the A1 leans very slightly toward the warm side. Not soupy warm though – just a little tinge.
So what about imaging and sound-stage? Well that is a combination of the miking of the recorded track and the response of the headphones you use. The A1 won’t change this. So that’s why I don’t comment on it. So what can I do? How about a little comparison with a similar device (Brainwavz AP001) and FiiO’s own A3? Let’s see how the A1 performs against the competition? For this section I volume matched each amplifier using test tones and a calibrated SPL meter. I also used the Dunu DN2000J – for its low impedance, high sensitivity, and very revealing nature.
FiiO A1 $30 vs Brainwavz AP001 $25 Both the AP001 and A1 show very similar size, weight and cost. The major differences are in feature set and control over the sonic signature. The AP001 has no volume control, no EQ, and the only extra feature it sports is the dual headphone out sockets (nice if you want to share – but you have to have similar headphones as your partner though). Its output is practically the same as the A1’s at full volume. The other thing with the AP001 is that its bass boost is permanently engaged – so it has a very warm signature. So if you engage the first bass boost on the A1, you are essentially getting the same signature as the AP001 – and that is where the A1 is just so much better. You get the choice of EQ and the variable volume control which makes a huge difference. The AP001 has its uses and for $25 it isn’t a bad device. But the A1 for an extra fiver is miles better.
FiiO A1 $30 vs FiiO A3 $60 The A1 is a lot smaller, about a quarter of the size, but in reality the A3 is the easier to stack with most DAPs (matching size). With the A3 you have a true gain control, the analogue pot, and the 1 stage bass boost (which is more subtle than the A1’s boost). The A1 will give you more colouration options though, and this will suit some people. But the real difference is in the driving power. The A3 has almost 6 times the power output – which makes it a truly useful amplifier. For the extra $30, I personally think it provides better value – and if you have an extra $10 on top of that you should read my Q1 review as well.
VALUE & CONCLUSION
I’ve now had the FiiO A1 for close to four months, and to be honest, I’m not really the intended audience for a device like this – although I can see its merits.
The A1 is a nicely sized micro amplifier with a good build, very good included accessories, and let’s face it, possesses a cool gadget look about it. Its strengths lie in its good measurements (pretty clean signature), ability to tailor the sound with added warmth and bass boost, low output impedance, and its battery life and fast recharge time. It makes a great companion to a device which doesn’t have volume control (like FiiO’s K1 amp/DAC), and the ability to clip onto a belt whilst keeping your source tucked away in a pocket will appeal to some.
Unfortunately though, it is fairly low powered and if you don’t value its EQ features, as a pure amplifier it really doesn’t have a lot going for it apart from its price. For those wanting to add it to some of FiiO’s cheaper DAPs (M3 or X1), my advice is don’t – it isn’t going to add anything other than the hardware EQ.
For the beginners who are looking to experiment with their first amplifier, and really value bass boost (but aren’t comfortable with using a software based graphic equaliser) – then there is very little risk with the A1. It genuinely sounds good, and has some nice features.
But if you are looking for something to boost ear or headphones that need more power – spend a little more and opt for the A3 or Q1. To me they represent far better value. Three stars
Personally - I'd suggest going to the FiiO A3 or Q1 - they simply have more power. Unfortunately I don't know the xperia. If it has a weak amp, the A1 may help a little - but its pretty weak on amplification itself.
i plan on pairing this amp with my luxury & precision L3 since it lacks bass and the EQ is limited. will this work well by boosting the bass on L3? i listen to bass heavy genres (hiphop, edm, house..)
@basefi - have you tried simply using the "bass" preset EQ on the L3? its actually not too bad, and definitely boosts the low end. Might be the easiest option.
Pros: Good sound quality and clarity, modular design, canvas carry bag, good padding on headband, reasonably sturdy
Cons: Mostly plastic build, aesthetics (looks), comfort, price / value
For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
I’d never heard of the PerfectSound brand, and to be honest I still wouldn’t know about them until George from Gear Best contacted me about reviewing a headphone. We duly arranged for me to be sent a pair, and they arrived in the first week of March.
I hadn’t done any prior research on them, so I guess I was a little surprised when I saw the M100 in person – I guess it wasn’t quite what I was expecting. Anyway – I had a quick listen and then an extended session with them for about an hour. At that point I contacted George with a few reasonably frank observations and gave him the opportunity of me returning the headphones without reviewing them (you’ll get the gist as you read the review). Anyway – to his credit George asked me to proceed – and I’ve always found that a refreshing approach – real honesty, even when you know the reviewer isn’t overly enthused.
So I’ve managed around 14 or 15 hours listening with the M100 – more than enough time to form a reasonable impression, and my 12yo daughter laughing at me quite often, and telling me how “goofy” I look.
ABOUT PERFECTSOUND The PerfectSound audio company was formed in 2012 by President James Lin and Art Director Kris Chang. The company is based in Taoyuan City, Taiwan, and their philosophy seems to be achieving perfect balance in an overall sound signature, alongside making the headphone fashionable. They have 3 series of headphones currently listed on their website – S, D and M – with the D series being their luxury line, and the M series being portable and modular (you choose the way you listen). Their philosophy from their Facebook site is:
With an experience of Audio innovation since 2003, Perfect has turned the passion for making fashion and elegant into the Headphone field. Perfect continue to stand on provide high quality sound and to maintain the best service for customer no matter where you are. High quality Voice, High quality Headphone and High quality service, to find your sound at Perfect-Sound.
DISCLAIMER The PerfectSound M100 was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to George (Gear Best) that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the M100 for follow up comparisons if required.
The Perfect Sound M100 can be sourced from Gear Best for USD 184 with free shipping.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. (This is to give any readers a baseline for interpreting the review).
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
For the purposes of this review - I mainly used the M100 straight from the headphone-out socket of my FiiO X3ii or iPhone 5S. I have noticed no significant changes in the overall sonic presentation, other than becoming more used to the signature of the M100 as I used them more often (brain burn-in). And although I used the M100 coupled with several different amplifiers, they are easily driven, and will pair nicely with most sources straight from the headphone out.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
FURTHER NOTES
From this point until the summary I will refer to the PerfectSound M100 simply as the M100 – for the sake of brevity more than anything else.
Other portable on-ear headphones which I have extensive experience with include the Beyer T51P, Sennheiser Momentum, Alessandro MS1, Grado SR325i, Grado RS1, and the XTZ Divine.
For the purposes of comparison I simply have used the portable headphone (on ear and over-ear) I have available at the moment. These include the XTZ Divine, UE6000 and Brainwavz HM2
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The M100 arrived in a largish retail 221 x 226 x 94mm maroon coloured retail box. The box has PerfectSound’s butterfly logo on the front (designating perfect harmony of lows, mids and highs), and a description of the contents, headphones and specifications on the rear panel. On opening the box, a canvas carry case is revealed, along with an accessory box and simple warranty card.
[size=inherit][/size]
M100 retail box - front
M100 retail box - rear
M100 canvas carry case and accessory box
The canvas bag is fairly sturdy, but won’t offer any hard protection. It has 2 open pockets (for replacement drivers) and one zipped pocket for cable or other accessories. It is a pretty well made bag, and should be perfect for taking in a backpack or tote-bag. The accessory box contains a 3.5-6.3mm adaptor, airline adaptor and the removable cable.
[size=inherit][/size]
M100 accessories
M100 inside the case
The PerfectSound butterfly
So it’s a pretty good first impression as far as accessories go – but as you’ll find out further into the review, the one thing (at this price point) they could have included to go some way to justifying the price would have been including the alternate drivers.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (From PerfectSound)
Type
Closed supra-aural portable headphone
Driver
Dynamic full sized – 40mm
Frequency Range
20 Hz – 20 Khz
Impedance
16 ohm
Sensitivity
Not stated
Plug
3.5mm gold plated straight jack (TRRS for inline mic)
Cable
1.3m dual sided, removable (3.5mm connectors), flat, in-line mic
Weight
192g
FREQUENCY GRAPH There is no frequency graph out there that I could find, so I was left to try my own very inaccurate rig. A few things before I proceed:
Although the measurements do work, I know I get a spike between 4-5 kHz which isn’t actually present, and the upper mid-range and treble areas are patchy. Nevertheless I wanted to use my rig (you can read about some of it here) – which is made up of the very simple Veritas (+ my own basic head simulator with no outer ear compensation). It is raw data only.
One thing to note is the excellent channel matching!
But let’s record (subjectively) what I’m hearing:
Reasonably linear bass response with emphasis in the mid-bass and especially lower bass (it has some warmth in the bottom end)
Relatively flat and slightly recessed mid-range (relative to the bass), but cohesive in the transition from lower to upper mid-range.
Clean lower treble – but with one or several peaks (giving a bit of heat to the upper end) one of which I suspect might be about 6-7 kHz (tested with a sine wave sweep). There is also a slight hint of haze about the upper mid-range/lower treble (it’s not entirely crystal clear).
Overall a relatively clean and clear headphone, which lends more toward lower end warmth, but not at the expense of overall clarity.
BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN / AESTHETICS When I first saw the M100 I had two thoughts (and I’m being completely honest here):
Grado design!
Looks fairly cheap and a bit tacky
[size=inherit][/size]
Well padded headband
Gimbal assembly
The modular design
You’re greeted with a very retro/Grado type design with black cups, dark grey yolks and a red (almost with a tint of orange) headband. It’s definitely not my type of design. I’ve loved the Grados I’ve owned, but they were a good kind of retro. There is something about the clean retro design of Grado that works. To me – the plastic and colours don’t. But who am I to judge – so I showed them to my wife, 12yo daughter and 14yo son. The two girls definitely don’t like the looks. My daughter even laughs at me every time I wear them. My son may become a convert – on him they looked OK.
Getting back to build, the head band is 31cm long, nicely curved, and has very good padding throughout. It is also reasonably wide (35mm at its widest point), and I’ve found it devoid of pressure spots. The foam padding is covered with a soft pleather. The headband is very flexible, and I suspect there is some sprung steel inside.
[size=inherit][/size]
Driver exposed - pads replaceable
Cup and pad
Connectors to the earcups
The headband is connected to the cups via a plastic block with a slot for a fully plastic yolk assembly. The plastic itself looks reasonably sturdy, and is adjusted by sliding up or down. And this is where the “modular” part comes in. You can slide the entire yolk and ear-cup off the headband, and essentially either replace the headband (different colour), or replace both drivers – different yolk and cup assembly. But I have just the one – so all I can do is show you how it works.
The cups swing freely on a single access (up and down), but there is no side-to-side adjustment. To me this is a poor design, as it doesn’t allow the full adjustment necessary for individual physiques. The cups are plastic, 70 mm diameter at their widest point, and about 50 mm deep from the rear of the cup to the outer edge of the pads. On the exterior side of the cups is a silver circle with the black and red butterfly motif/logo and the channel indicator (L/R). The problem with this is that they are just stickers – and one of mine was completely out of alignment (that’s how I discovered they were stickers). At the price point, again it doesn’t make me thing value for money – actually quite the opposite. The pads themselves are pleather over memory foam, and they aren’t the softest I’ve come across. They are replaceable though – although getting them on or off was a bit of a mission. The pads have a 75mm outer diameter, 35mm inner diameter, and are about 20mm deep. Because the inner enclosure is small, they are definitely on-ear.
[size=inherit][/size]
Connectors to cups - note the colours for easy ID
Y split
TRRS jack
Both cups have a 3.5mm socket at the bass of the cup for the removable cable. This is 1.3m, flat wound, OFC copper. The jacks are standard 3.5mm stereo jacks to the headset, with no locking mechanism. They do have colour co-ordination on the jacks though so it is easy to see which is which (a nice touch). On the left hand cable is a combined microphone and single control button which worked on both my X3ii and iPhone 5S (one push play/pause, two pushes next track, three pushes previous track). With my iPhone, if you push and hold you get Siri – which makes it easy for controlling what you are playing or searching for a track. The microphone is reasonable quality, and is a good height for voice calls. I did make one call with it, and it is very clear – both talking and listening.
The cable has a Y split approximately 40 cm from the cup (so it is relatively low) and the cable is terminated in a 4 pole 3.5mm TRRS gold plated jack. The jacks all have slightly flexible rigid rubber strain reliefs, but there is no relief on the y-split. The cable seems pretty solid though.
Overall the build is sturdy, but there is a lot of plastic and rubber, and it just seems “cheap” (this may be a combo of the plastics and the colours), and when you’re talking about a headphone in the USD 180 bracket. I’d be expecting a bit better build.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION The fit is interesting because they do clamp fairly solidly. You could “head-bang” with these, and they should stay on your head. If you’re a fan of on-ears, you’ll probably have no issues with the fit and overall comfort, but I’ve never been a great fan of on-ears for long term comfort. Any more than about an hour and my ears are starting to revolt. The biggest issue they have is the lack of sideways rotation, and this means getting a perfect seal is down to twisting the cups manually to try and get the perfect fit. The clamp does help the fit, but it shouldn’t be this hard.
Mathew modeling the M100 (side)
Front view - they looked better on him than me
Isolation is actually pretty good for a closed on-ear portable, but will be dependent on the seal you achieve. With music playing, I couldn’t hear the keyboard as I was typing.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the PerfectSound M100. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X3 gen 2.
Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.
Thoughts on General Signature If I was to describe the signature in a few words – I’d say that the M100 is a little V shaped with prominent bass and a clear and relatively clean upper mid-range. The prominent bass brings a little lower end warmth.
With both tracks, the bass guitar comes through pretty strong comparative to the mid-range, but it isn’t overpowering things, and both the vocals and sax in Gaucho seem nicely balanced. Cymbals have nice presence with Sultans, and good sense of decay too. There is a little more recession with the vocals on this track, and although it is clear, there is that very slight hint of haze I talked about earlier. Overall detail is OK without being great. Some of the usual micro details I hear (drum stick clicks etc.) are masked. It’s pleasant and easy to listen to – but for someone who appreciates detail, you may be left wanting.
Tundra is up first, and the first thing I noticed was a little extra “boom” from the drums. The stage is quite narrow and very intimate – definitely inside my head space. Imaging is pretty good, but slightly smeared by the lower bass impact. Overall though, a nice presentation of the track. Dante’s prayer was next and the presentation of piano, cello and McKennitt's vocals was pretty good (albeit very slightly muffled on the vocals). Again, no issues with imaging – it just continues to be a pretty small projected stage. My usual check for immersion when the applause started was what I had expected – there simply isn’t enough stage to provide the immersion I can get with some other headphones. That isn’t a huge negative though – few headphones can manage it. The final track is Amanda Marshall’s “Let It Rain” and I use it for two reasons – it has been miked to give a holographic feel – which is actually pretty flat this time on the M100. It’s also a good track to test sibilance (I know it is in the recording). The sibilance is there but not emphasised in this test, and again the vocal presentation is very slightly recessed. Not a lot but worth mentioning.
Bass Quality and Quantity Tracks used: “Bleeding Muddy Waters”, “Royals”
Lanegan’s moody track is up first and the M100 handles it well. Good bass impact, and good overall tonality. Bass texture is pretty good too – just the right amount of gravel in Mark’s vocal performance. The mid-bass is giving good thump with only a slight muddiness but no real signs of bleed. Next was the sub-bass test, and for this I switched to Lorde’s “Royals”. The M100 delivered well with very good impact and reaching appreciably low. Ella’s vocals came through clear – and overall it was a pretty good rendition of this track.
Female Vocals Tracks used: “Aventine”, “Strong”, “For You”, “The Bad In Each Other”, “Howl”, “Safer”, “Light as a Feather”, “Mile on the Moon”
I suspected this test would be interesting because the slight recession I was hearing was more in the 2 kHz area, which means my female artist’s overtones sit back a little. Starting first with Agnes Obel and the usual euphony is not quite there. It’s definitely not a bad presentation, but there is that very slight hollowness to her vocals, which would normally have me reaching for EQ. London Grammar’s “Strong” was better and the M100 seems to gel with Hannah’s slightly deeper vocal presentation (although I would still give it a bump at 2 kHz). The best in the line-up was Feist and FaTM – both tracks having some good dynamic bass slam. They were thoroughly enjoyable, as were Cilmi and Norah with their slower jazzy tracks. All in all, the M100 handles female vocals really pretty well. For my own personal tastes it isn’t perfect, but I think a lot of people will like this presentation.
Male Vocals Tracks used: “Away From the Sun”, “Art for Art’s Sake”, “Broken Wings”, “Diary of Jayne”, “Hotel California”, “Keith Don’t Go”, “EWBTCIAST”
I expected better things with my rock tracks, and the M100 definitely started hitting its stride with my classic rock, acoustic rock tracks. 3 Door’s Down’s “Away From the Sun” has its usual rock anthem feel, and showed some really good overall balance and coherency throughout – bass quality, lower mid-range with Todd’s vocals, and upper mid-range with the guitar crunch. Next on to some older classic rock, and 10CC was really very good – especially the vocals. The clarity was exceptional, and the only thing I would have liked to do is dial back the bass just slightly. I next contrasted this with the much faster guitar based hard rock of Breaking Benjamin, and this is where the drivers started to get just a little smeary/blurry (in the really fast paced “wall of sound” guitar sections). This track will often overwhelm drivers though – but it is interesting to note. Switching to acoustic music (Eagles / Lofgren) and this is much better. The M100 does acoustic guitar really well – I love the tonality here. It’s almost Grado like in its sonic signature as well as its looks.
Finally I get to Pearl Jam – Vedder is my ultimate test for timbre and tonality. The M100 don’t disappoint here, and the first thing to notice is the decay on the cymbals – really well presented. As far as Vedder's vocals go, the tone is great, but the actual texture is just very slightly smoothed over. It is still thoroughly enjoyable though. Great – but not faultless.
Other Genre Specific Notes Again for tracks, albums, artists – please refer to this list: http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks
Alt Rock – DSOTM’s Money has good directional cues, and for the most part is pretty clear. Bottom end is still fairly warm – but enjoyable none the less. PT’s Trains is just pure dynamic fun, and beautifully presented. Wilson’s vocals are brilliant. Loved this presentation.
Jazz / Blues – Pretty good, and I think it is the contrast between decent bass impact and the detail in cymbals. Brass sounds really good with the M100s as well – in both PQ and with Miles. For Blues, I played a little Bonamassa, and the combination of guitar tonality and the way the M100 portrays male vocals which was really good.
Hip-hop / EDM / Trance – As expected, the M100 delivers and delivers well with all 3 genres. Very good impact and depth of bass extension. Eminem was very clear, but also visceral in its impact. Switching to Little Dragon and the feeling as similar – really dynamic and fun presentation – and I do think the M100 would have a lot of fans for the more bass heavy genres.
Pop / Indie – Again the M100 delivered well. Some of Adele’s music really isn’t that well recorded, and even though I adore her vocal range and presentation, sometimes a little more bass / warmth to smooth things over can really help the recording. Coldplay was likewise smooth, warm, bassy and pretty enjoyable. I’ve become a real Indie fan over the last couple of years and the default slightly V shaped signature worked well with band of Horses and Yesper. There is enough warmth to smooth imperfections in the recording, and enough upper mid and lower treble to ensure good balance overall.
Classical / Opera – This actually surprised me because I didn’t think it would work well, but it did. Solo violin and full orchestra was lovely – just occasionally peaky. Solo piano (Kempf) was sublime (great tonality and texture), as was Zoe Keating with her modern cello. Netrebko and Garanca was OK but they really need a headphone with more balance (less peakyness in the lower treble), and a bigger presentation of sound-stage.
The M100 are actually tuned pretty well in my opinion. PerfectSound knows their stuff.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The M100 is easily powered straight out of the portable devices I have, and although I tested it with both the X3ii – both unamped and amped with the E17K and IMS-HVA, I haven’t noticed any difference in actual dynamics. On my iPhone 5S most tracks were perfect at around 35% volume. The M100 is designed to run perfectly out of a portable device – so amping isn’t a requirement, but a choice for those who’d like to.
RESPONSE TO EQ? As you might have guessed, the one area I wanted to tweak was in the 2-3 kHz area – the presence area where I seem to be quite sensitive to any dips, and the area which gives female vocals a lift. So with the X3ii I applied a very simple +3dB at 2 kHz. The result – for my tastes – perfection now with the female vocals. I revisited a lot of the tracks I formerly had issues with, and this time I was more than satisfied.
QUICK COMPARISON – OTHER HEADPHONES This is simply going to be a very rough comparison with the other portable headphones I have on hand – the Brainwavz HM2, UE6000, and XTZ Divine.
M100 ($184) vs HM2 ($49.50)
M100 vs HM2 (ignore 4 kHz spike)
M100 vs HM2
If I look first of all at build quality and aesthetics, I’d have to give overall sturdiness to the M100, but looks and design (folding portability and four way swivel of the ear-cups) to the HM2. The HM2 takes the comfort stakes for its larger oval ear-cups. Sonics are interesting – the M100 is a much warmer richer sound with more upper end, so a lot more V shaped. The HM2 sounds a lot more distant, and spacious, and also a little more distant. It’s difficult to say which is better as they are quite different in their mid-range presentation. For value though, the HM2 skunks the M100, and highlights the M100’s main issue – it’s pricing for what it is offering as a whole. I do think that the M100 has the superior sonic signature for my preferences – but not at more than 3 times the price.
M100 ($184) vs UE6000 ($160 / now discontinued)
M100 vs UE6000 (ignore 4 kHz spike)
M100 vs UE6000
I tested it with the UE6000’s ANC off (they sound better that way anyway). On build quality and design, both are relatively sturdy (this pair of UE6000 have stood the test of time), but the UE6000 has far better design and features with its inclusion of ANC, volume control on the cable, and foldability / compact storage. For comfort, it isn’t even remotely close – the UE6000 is miles ahead of the M100, and that goes for aesthetics as well – they still are a very classy looking headphone.
Sonically the two are actually very similar, with both possessing a warmish and bassy bottom end, very clear mid-range and bright and clear upper end. Both are V shaped in their overall presentation. The UE6000 has a bit more distance in its vocal presentation and comparatively bigger stage, while the M100 is just a bit narrower and more intimate. The UE6000 is a bit more laid back and relaxed, the M100 a bit more vivid. And when we take value into account, whilst they are comparable sonically, the additional features, and design points on the UE6000 simply make it the better prospect.
M100 ($184) vs XTZ Divine ($179)
M100 vs XTZ Divine
For this comparison I used the XTZ wired rather than using the Bluetooth. On build quality the XTZ shows it superior craftsmanship in its choice of materials and design features. It looks fantastic too, and folds completely flat. The features aren’t close either with the XTZ’s on ear controls, and DSP for even better fidelity. Comfort goes to the XTZ (softer pads), but neither is ideal for long listening sessions. Sonically it is a no contest – they are completely different headphones, and the XTZ Divine has superior balance, fidelity, and ability. And it’s not that the M100 is a bad headphone – it sounds pretty good. It just isn’t in the same league.
PERECTSOUND M100 - SUMMARY
The PerfectSound M100 is an interesting headphone, and it has been difficult to review for me. It actually has a lot of good qualities – a very sturdy build, the ability change its sound or looks by swapping the headband or drivers, and a pretty good sound signature which will suit most genres, and especially pop, rock, and bass heavy genres which are perhaps favoured by a younger audience. And while it looks pretty silly on me, my son actually wears it pretty well. It has a very Grado’ish retro look and bold red and black colours which will suit some people.
But where it has good points, there is also some not so good. The supra-aural design along with the clamp force and slightly firmer pads means comfort for many will become difficult after an hour or so. Almost the entire headphone is made of plastic or rubber, it doesn’t fold for compact use, the cups don’t swivel on all axis, and some of the finish leaves a little to be desired. And I think that is the M100’s main fault. It is simply in the wrong price bracket. When I look at the materials used, it simply doesn’t look like a $180 headphone, and when compared with headphones at that level it starts falling a long way behind in features. If you told me this headphone was in the $60 or $70 bracket, I’d probably be recommending it. For $180 go out and buy the XTZ Divine – and you can thank me for it later.
Unfortunately at its price point I can’t recommend the M100, and it is a pity because it is a very good sounding headphone – just not at this price. 2.5 stars from me, and that makes this review appear negative, and really it isn’t.
FINAL THANKS Thanks George – I appreciate your candour and honesty in asking me to go ahead anyway. I really wish I could give this headphone a higher score. Unfortunately it is the value of the available competition which is the M100’s biggest downfall.
Pros: Build quality, sound quality, balance, vocal clarity, imaging ability, fit (shape), accessories, cable quality, and KB service.
Cons: Hard edges on the internal facing (comfort), cable slightly microphonic, some may find it bass light
For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images
INTRODUCTION
Firstly I want to shout out to Mark (Head-Fier d marc0) for working with Ken Ball from ALO/Campfire for making this tour possible, and also for inviting me. Secondly I’d like to thank Ken for making this possible. I know you’re getting exposure for your product range mate – but it is a wonderful thing to give us this opportunity.
There were a lot of ways I could tackle this introduction, but I thought I’d take you all on a bit of a different journey – as it’ll give you a bit of insight into who Campfire is, and how good their service is as well. I can say from the last couple of weeks experience that Mr Ken Ball cares very deeply for audio quality, for what he produces, and for the betterment of his products.
Like others on the tour, I’ve been waiting for my turn with the IEMs, and a couple of weeks ago the Jupiter arrived. I was really looking forward to these, and popped them in my ears, and ……. let’s just say they weren’t to my tastes. I know a lot of people have raved over them – and they have some incredibly good points – spacious, refined, wonderful bass, extended treble – they just have a mid-range that jars badly with my particular tastes. I let my thoughts be known in the tour thread, and I was my usual quite blunt self. I’ll also note that I know of at least two others on Head-Fi who share my thoughts of mid-range issues. We all share the same sensitivity around the 2-3 kHz range – and this is where the Jupiter has quite a big drop (intentional) – to me it simply gives the Jupiter a measure of incoherency in its relation between lower and upper mid-range. It’s simply preference – but I would find it hard to be objective about an earphone where the most important part of the sonic signature was miles away from my own tastes. Call me narrow minded – but I couldn’t do it. I informed Mark, and this started some direct contact with Ken.
What followed were some frank but professional exchanges between the two of us. Ken was fairly disappointed in my comments. I was keen to let him know why, and what my issues were. We exchanged some graphs, I outlined all the issues I had – and we arranged for me to send not only the Jupiter back to him to be checked, but also some other IEMs I had on hand so he had some points of reference, and also was able to check my graphs on his own professional measuring equipment. This led to further dialogue – including a call to him – and some excellent discussion about both of our experiences and philosophy.
So let shorten thing by saying that Ken has helped me a lot with my measuring gear, and also identifying why I found the Jupiter so jarring. I in turn have helped him with (hopefully) some thoughts for future design changes. The thing I want to emphasise though is how professional he was in dealing with me, and also how passionate Ken is about his products and customer service.
So moving on from the Jupiter, a week ago the Orion arrived, and so with a little trepidation I had my first listen. And OMG I am happy that I continued the tour. Read on to find out why the Orion is one of the best tuned IEMs (for my tastes) I have heard in my five years on Head-Fi.
ABOUT CAMPFIRE AUDIO Before Mark approached me I’d never heard of them. Then he mentioned the name Ken Ball and things clicked into place. Ken of course is the CEO and founder of ALO Audio (2006) and ALO is very well known for creating high quality audio components – including cables, amplifiers and all manner of other audio equipment. Ken founded Campfire Audio last year – with a vision of creating extremely high quality earphones with excellence in design, materials and of course sound quality.
DISCLAIMER The Campfire Audio Orion was provided to me for review as part of a tour. I get to use it for 7-10 days then it goes to the next person. The only obligation I have as part of the tour is that I need to write about it. I am not affiliated to Campfire or ALO Audio in any way, and this is my subjective opinion of the Orion.
PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'.
(This is to give any readers a baseline for interpreting the review).
I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5 Pro and L3, and iPhone 5S) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Beyer T1, Sennheiser HD600, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).
I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.
I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays).
Over the last week I’ve used the Orion paired with most of the sources I have at my disposal – from my iPhone to the L5Pro and X7. But for the review I’ve used mainly my X3ii + E17K, and also the X7. In the time I’ve been using the Orion, I haven’t noticed any sonic change. And although I used the Orion coupled with several different amplifiers, they are easily driven, and will pair nicely with most sources straight from the headphone out.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE REVIEW
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES The Orions arrived in their distinctive 76 x 116 x 65 mm rainbow coloured thin cardboard retail hinged lid box. It has that sort of 70’s psychedelic vibe about the patterning on it – and is very distinctive. The top (lid) simply has the word Orion and a short description, and the front face has a picture of the Orions.
[size=inherit][/size]
The distinctive Campfire box
Hinged lid
Storage case, and hidden compartment inside box
Opening the lid reveals the Campfire Audio case, and it really is a very sturdy case, but more “jacket or bag pocketable” than trousers. It measures approx. 75 x 115 x 40 mm. The case has a canvas outer, is zipped on 3 sides, and when opened reveals a soft wool interior which will definitely protect and preserve your IEMs. Despite the outside being canvas, it is quite strong, and pretty rigid.
[size=inherit][/size]
Accessories under the lid
Included accessories
The Campfire manual and warranty
Under the case is a hidden compartment which reveals the accessories. These include:
S/M/L silicone tips
S/M/L generic foam tips (some of these were missing from the demo pack)
S/M/L genuine Comply T400 tips
A cleaning brush / wax remover
A Campfire Audio logo clothing button / pin
Campfire’s foldout user manual (incl care instructions and warranty info)
[size=inherit][/size]
Tips, cleaning tool and Campfire "button"
The Orions and Tinsel cable safely in the case
Well padded and very sturdy canvas outer case
TBH, you really don’t need any more than what is included, as the cinch on the cable negates the need for a shirt clip. And while I note the omission of an airline adaptor or 3.5-6.3mm adaptor, really speaking – how many of us actually use these?
Whilst a smaller carry case would have been nice – I can understand the use for the larger case – it is just easier to handle and pack the Orions.
FREQUENCY GRAPH The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. I must stress that they aren’t calibrated to IEC measurement standards, but the raw data I’m getting has been very consistent, and is actually not too far away from the raw data measured by other systems except for above 4-5 kHz where it shows significantly lower than measurements performed on a properly calibrated rig. So when reading the graphs, don’t take them as gospel – or at least remember that the area above 4-5 kHz will be significantly higher in actuality. It is my aim to get this system calibrated at some stage in the near future.
[size=inherit][/size]
Excellent channel matching
CSD with very clean decay measurements
Comparative data only - Jupiter vs Orion
What I’m hearing (subjective) – noted before I ever had these on the measurement bench.
Very (extremely) linear bass response which is has a little roll-off into the sub-bass, but nothing too dramatic.
Very clean and coherent mid-range which I’d guess is relatively flat through to about 2 kHz – maybe with a slight tilt up, because female vocals sound wonderful in the presence or overtone area.
Reasonably well extended but very smooth lower treble which falls well short of excessive sibilance (for me) and remains detailed with sufficient air for clarity.
Overall I’d say that the Orion has an extremely well balanced frequency response. Vocals are in perfect harmony with bass, and while the treble response is smooth, there is still plenty of detail (cymbal decay is very good).
What should also be noted is how well the drivers are matched (and some of the differences shown in my measurements are likely to be minor differences in seating each ear piece. They are practically identical. When Ken says his team hand-pick and match the drivers, it isn’t just “marketing speak”.
BUILD & DESIGN I’m the type of guy who quite enjoys simple, clean, industrial design. And on first look they are amazing to look at. Campfire uses a full machined aluminium enclosure. Each shell is taken from a solid block of aircraft grade aluminium and then each small batch is CNC machined and finished – with the process talking around 9 hours. After that they are anodised. The reason for this is simple – Campfire wanted to house the drivers very securely in a totally damped and non-resonant shell. And if you look at the CSD plot above, you can see how successful they were. Very impressive.
[size=inherit][/size]
First look at Tinsel cable and Orion
Exterior face and hex screws
Internal face and nozzle
Physically each shell measures approximately 20mm in length, 115mm in height and has a depth of approx. 15mm (including the nozzle). The nozzle itself is angled slightly forward and slightly up, extends approx. 6-7mm from the main body, and has an external diameter of 6mm. The shape is very ergonomic, and the Orion is designed to be used with the cable over ear. The IEM shell is 3 pieces in total – nozzle, shell and back plate – with the plate secured by 3 small hex screws. There are L/R marking on the inside of both ear pieces and the Campfire logo is also discretely engraved on the outer face. The finish is black matt, the entire shell is precision cut – and these look gorgeous.
[size=inherit][/size]
Very good angle on the nozzle
Clean joins, and precision CNC
MMCX connectors
At the top of the shell is a beryllium coated MMCX connector, and when used with the supplied silver plated copper ALO Tinsel cable, the connection is made with a very reassuring click. The cables do rotate in their sockets, but the connection itself seems to be very robust. Unfortunately this is one of those things that only time can be the judge of – but the craftsmanship and material used seem to indicate longevity (to me anyway).
As I mentioned, the cable is ALO’s “Tinsel” which is high purity sliver-plated copper wire encased in an FEP jacket. FEP is similar to Teflon, and some of the traits it has include resistance to chemicals, sweat, water, and oil. This means it should protect the wires from oxidation, and eliminate the “greening” effect. The male MMCX connector is again beryllium coated, fits very snugly, and has either a blue or red dot on the connector to indicate L/R. There is a 75mm length of memory wire for over-ear wear, and I’ve found this very malleable, but also holds its shape very well. The cable is approximately 1.4m long, and consists of two twisted pairs above the Y split which continue as a twisted quad right through to the jack. The Y split is small and light and houses an in-built cinch which works really well, but can be a little loose. The jack is 3.5mm, right angled, and has clear rubber housing. Strain relief is excellent. The jack will also fit my iPhone 5S with case in place, although YMMV as the diameter of the rubber base is around 6mm.
[size=inherit][/size]
Orion + Tinsel = perfect match
Memory wire and beryllium coated connectors
Fantastic angle for nozzle - L to R = Atlas, Orion, U6, A83
The one thing I did find with the Tinsel cable is that when sitting down (quiet environment with the cable sitting above my clothes), it could be a little microphonic. It’s not terrible, but there was some noise. However, I’ve used it a few times walking and with cable management (inside clothes) and use of the cinch, there is practically no cable noise at all. It was actually very good. The other thing to note with the cable is that they are prone to tangling, but if you are like me, and tend to wind carefully, and use the included ties, you shouldn’t have too many issues. If you are the type to scrunch and slip into a pocket though – you are going to get frustrated.
[size=inherit][/size]
Included ALO Tinsel cable
3.5mm Jack
Y split and cinch
So both aesthetically and physically I am highly impressed with the build and design except for one small point (which we’ll cover in the next section).
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION Fit for me is fantastic – the shells are very ergonomic in shape, and this includes the angle of the nozzles and also the placement of the cable exits. The shells (when fitted) do not extend outside my outer ear, and I would have no issues lying down with the Orion. The memory wire is also really well implemented here so that snugging the wires properly is easy. The fit is relatively shallow, so for me I had to resort to my larger tips. If it was possible to extend the nozzle length by a couple of mm, it would really help the overall fit I think.
[size=inherit][/size]
Extremely good fit - with malleable memory wire
Stock foam tips
Adel U6 vs Orion vs Atlas (notice the angles)
This leads me to comfort and my only real issue with the design. My ears are soft, smooth, and have a lot of curved surfaces. I’d bet yours do to. The interior of the Orion shell has a series of hard angular edges. I first noted this with the Jupiter, and it continued with the Orion. For the first while when wearing them, they actually created sore points on my ears. After more than 10 days (between the use of both), the soreness has disappeared, and I’m not really bothered by it anymore. But to me anyway, it is something that can be improved upon. The Orion doesn’t feel as though it isn’t there like some of my other IEMs. I’ve already covered this at length with Ken, including sending him some rough images of where the hot spots are, and he is already working on future fixes. And that is something else I’m really appreciating about Campfire – the desire to improve.
As far as isolation goes, it will be tip dependent. For me, using large Comply T400 tips, the isolation is excellent – at least as good as using my q-Jays.
[size=inherit][/size]
Sony Isolation and Comply "Comfort"
SpinFit and Spiral Dot
Ostry Blue & generic Dual Flange
And speaking of tips – those who’ve read my reviews will know that I have one ear canal slightly different to the other one (my right is very slightly smaller) - so I tend to find that usually single silicon flanges don't fit overly well. This is often even more of an issue with shallow fitting IEMs. I tried the large included silicones and was surprised to find them very comfortable and capable of getting a good seal. So I ran through some of the other tips I normally try.
Sony Isolation tips gave instant seal and brilliant results – but I had to be careful about some vacuum issues with any change of pressure. I also fit and had great success with Ostry’s blue and black tuning tips, Spin-fits, and also Spiral Dots. The lip on the Orion is fantastic for every tip I tried and I credit the reason for a lot of the success with the tips I tried to the angle of the nozzle. It isn’t just good – it is perfect.
So everything is practically perfect with the exception of the comfort. And it’s not bad, just not as good as it could be.
SOUND QUALITY The following is what I hear from the Campfire Audio Orion. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X7 and large Comply T400 tips. For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7 (with AM2 amp module attached) was around 22-24/120 on low gain which was giving me an average SPL of around 70-75 dB and peaks at around 80dB (A weighted measurements from my SPL meter).
Initial Thoughts From the first time I listened to the Orion, it wasn’t a sense of “wow”, but more a sense that everything was simply in perfect balance. And that sense of completeness has grown the more I’ve listened to them. I’ve hardly wanted to tweak them during the entire week. Usually there will be something with an IEM which just needs a slight adjustment for me to find it perfect. But with the Orion, I’ve just been able to marvel at how well they have handled every genre I’ve played. The only thing I’ve tweaked occasionally is the bass, and that has been more to find out what the driver set-up is capable of. The device I’ve used hasn’t mattered either. I’ve tried them with the X7, solo out of the X3ii, with Martin’s new hybrid portable tube amp, and balanced out of L&Ps new L3. Each has a different flavour, and with each the overall sound has been sublime – and that to me is the characteristic of an extremely good IEM.
If I was to now describe the signature in a few words/phrases – I’d choose the words clear, balanced, detailed, and smooth.
Fantastic clarity, and at first both tracks seem a little lean and perhaps a little bass light, but as I’ve listened to both tracks more throughout the week I’ve realised that what I’m simply not hearing is the bass guitar dominating like I’m used to with some the triple hybrids I have. And it’s different, but it’s a very good different. The overall resolution is excellent, and I’m picking up all the minute details like drum stick clicks. Cymbals are there and easily heard, but not highlighted. The cymbal decay is effortless. Focus is in the mid-range, but it is a balanced focus with everything coming together separately, but forming a very cohesive whole. It’s easy to focus on particular parts, but also easy to simply relax and let the music take you away. And while there is bite in the guitar and a little bit of edge where it is needed, the lower treble still has fantastic resolution but without being the slightest bit peaky. How did you do this Ken? It is phenomenal.
I started as usual with Amber Rubarth’s binaural track Tundra for measuring depth and width of stage. The first noticeable thing is the extremely precise imaging – the clarity and sense of separation is very good. Width is just on the peripheral of my head space (which is actually pretty good for an IEM), and there is an equally good sense of depth. There is also genuine sense of 3D space, and the blackness of the background, and sense of separation of individual instruments is very good indeed.
“Dante’s Prayer” is up next (I know this live track well, and I know from video where the real placement of instruments is on stage). This track is never really expansive but it is good to judge tonal balance - combo of piano, cello and vocals. The Orion is wonderful with this track, and handles positioning really well. But my main reason for using the track is the applause at the end. With some headphones it is possible to get total immersion (HD600) where you can be right in the audience. The Orion gives both width and depth and for a few seconds the illusion is there. It isn’t as forceful as the HD600 but it is impressively present.
The final track in this section is Amanda Marshall’s “Let It Rain” and I use it for two reasons – it has been miked to give a holographic feel (which the Orion nails perfectly – a beautifully 3D sense of the music around me), and it’s a good track to test sibilance (I know it is in the recording). At my normal listening levels, the sibilance is there, but barely noticeable, and definitely not annoying at my listening level.
Mark Lanegan’s track is always my first test for bass quality, quantity and also any bass bleed. The track could be described as dark and brooding – but usually has nice contrast between deep drum beats and Marks throaty vocals. The visceral impact is missing but interestingly the tonal quality of Mark’s vocals still comes through perfectly. And the bass is so clean and clear – with no signs of bleed. It is different to what I’m used to, but nevertheless I still find it enjoyable. I did try a bit of EQ lifting both sub and mid-bass, and it is definitely possible to coax more out of the driver if necessary, but it’s never going to reach the same type of impact as a dynamic driver.
Lorde’s track “Royals” is my sub-bass impact test – and the Orion shows its extension by reaching quite low – but it’s obviously rolled off. The rumble is there but barely. Ella’s vocals are very clear, and the presentation is good – but bass lovers are going to find the quality great but the quantity not so much. For me – I adjust easily, and there is always EQ if I needed a boost.
Because I was a little conflicted on my opinion of the bass performance, I finished with Lindsey Stirling’s “Electric Daisy Violin”. It’s a good reasonably bass heavy track which is a good test of speed and impact. Again with the Orion, the speed is there, and the overall quality is fantastic, but the impact is refined rather than “pumping”. For all that though, once you get used to the overall tonal balance, it is a combination that I can personally live with.
Female Vocals Tracks used: “Aventine”, “Strong”, “For You”, “The Bad In Each Other”, “Howl”, “Safer”, “Light as a Feather”, “Man on the Moon”
And this is where the Orion simply blows me away. It’s often difficult to find an IEM that does female vocals well without sacrificing some of the lower mid-range. Yet the Orion is incredibly good with both. As soon as I started playing Agnes Obel’s “Aventine” for the first time I knew the Orion was a winner. Great contrast between Cello and vocals, and absolutely no hollowness with the vocals at all. Obel can be a bit honky at times if the cohesion isn’t there, and the transition from lower to upper mids with the Orion is seamless. Vocals have that euphony which I personally like. For me this presentation is perfect.
This was repeated with every female artist I tried, and especially so with London Grammar and also Gabriella Cilmi. Safer can give me goose-bumps whenever it’s captured perfectly, and the Orion didn’t disappoint. Even the tracks with a bit of bass (Feist, FatM), while not as dynamic as with my hybrids, were still utterly compelling.
The standout this time was Sarah Jarosz, and it was so good I ended up listening to her entire album. Any time an IEM has me doing this during a review, I know it is a winner.
Male Vocals Tracks used: “Away From the Sun”, “Art for Art’s Sake”, “Broken Wings”, “Diary of Jayne”, “Hotel California”, “Keith Don’t Go”, “EWBTCIAST”
Moving to some of my male artists, and I was expecting a little weakness with the lower bass levels, but what I didn’t prepare myself for was how good the overall balance would perform – even with a lot of my rock collection. 3 Door’s Down’s “Away From the Sun” was first, and whilst the bass was a little more subdued than my hybrids, the balance more than makes up for it. Again I’m struck by the natural tonality and balance. Add the separation of instruments and you have a really nice mix – where all of a sudden the softer bass isn’t as much of an issue as I thought it might be.
Trying some older classic rocks (10CC) and again the vocals are presented so clearly and in such perfect balance with the rest of track that it’s difficult not to just sit back and relax, and forget the job at hand. The key here for me is the clarity and detail, and while the overall tonality might not be rich or lush, it is still full enough to satisfy me. The sense of stereo space is very good too – especially with this particular track.
Switching out to more guitar based acoustic music (Eagles / Lofgren), or slower rock (Alter Bridge’s “Broken Wings”) and here is where the Orion soars. Stringed instruments are fantastic, and my live version of Hotel California ends up being an eye closing, toe-tapping experience. The best part is that the vocals in all three tracks are full, and I’m noticing no weakness or tonal leanness.
Time to get to Pearl Jam and as per usual, if Vedder works, then it’s a winner. And for my tastes, it is perfection. Again everything is in balance, gobs of detail, and there is brilliant texture and timbre in Eddie’s vocal presentation. The bass guitar this time is in perfect balance, and the cymbal decay is incredibly life-like.
This time I’m not going to go through genres individually – the Orion (for my tastes) was brilliant with everything. It didn’t have the impact for some of the heavier electronica, or hip-hop. Yet I still found some of AVB’s trance, of Little Dragon’s trip-hop thoroughly enjoyable. It was particularly good with alt-rock (Floyd and Porcupine Tree were both incredible). And both Jazz and Classical were utterly enjoyable. I have a couple of live classical performances, and they were amazing. Netrebko and Garanca singing Lakme’s “Flower Duet” was nothing short of divine.
AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS As I alluded to earlier, the Orion is easily driven out of a smartphone or DAP, and on my iPhone 5S I’m sitting around 20-25%. Any louder and its getting a bit uncomfortably loud.
I also volume matched and compared X3ii vs X3ii + E17K, and there was no discernible audible difference in dynamic presentation – so I think it is pretty safe to say that extra amping won’t be necessary. Based on the specs alone (14 ohm and 114dB SPL), straight out of the headphone-out of most sources should be more than enough. Small plug though – I really enjoyed the tonality of the X3ii + IMS-HVA (Hybrid Valve Amp).
[size=inherit][/size]
Orion with Martin's HVA
Orion balanced mode from the L&P L3
Orion with the FiiO X7 (and AM2)
One thing to be aware of though is the relatively high sensitivity and low impedance of the Orion, so ideally a source with under 2 ohms output impedance is desirable. I tried – with the X3ii and E17K – to detect any hiss, but as expected (my high frequency hearing is hopeless), I couldn’t hear any. So I asked once again for my lovely wife to “lend an ear”. She’s pretty good at hearing hiss, and she couldn’t detect any via the E17K at right up to 60/60, so with my set-up, the Orion is excellent.
RESPONSE TO EQ? Although I didn’t play around a lot with EQ, I did want to see what could be done with the bass using a simple EQ (tone controls on the E17K). So I switched to the X3ii + E17K, gave the bass control +4, and went back to some of my bassier tracks.
It added both mid-bass impact and also some sub-bass slam. It also warmed and thickened things a little. To be honest I actually preferred the overall tonality and bass of the un-eq’d Orion, but it’s nice to know that you can coax some extra impact out if you need it.
COMPARISONS So what do I try and compare with when pitching the Orion against other IEMs? It is the only single BA I have, so I decided to go with earphones in a similar price point. I chose the DUNU DN2000J, Alclair Curve 2, and Jay’s Q-Jays – mostly because of their price points, but also because of their relative balance, somewhat similar frequency curves, and because they are all earphones I use on a reasonably regular basis.
As always, the IEMs were compared after volume matching (SPL meter and test tones), but the comparisons are completely subjective. For these tests I used the X3ii and E17K – simply because it is easier to volume match with this combo.
Orion $349 vs DN2000J $289.
This pitches a single BA against a triple hybrid, but as you can see from the graph, comparatively they have similar frequency shaping, and the price is relative.
The build on both is impeccable, but for fit, the superior ergonomics of the Orion win out. Comfort is a bit of a wash, but if Ken does fix the internal edging, it would again go to the Orion. It also comes with the removable Tinsel cable which is a plus.
Comparatively, the 2000J sounds a good deal more V shaped with more bass presence, and also more of an edge in the upper registers. Bass on both is very good quality, quick and well defined. The 2000J simply has a little more impact. Both are incredible with female vocals, with the 2000J being a little more euphonic. If I was judging alone on female vocals, I’d probably pick the 2000J. When you factor in male vocals and look at overall tonality though – the Orion just has a fuller, richer, and more balanced signature.
Despite the price difference, I would take the Orion.
Orion vs DN2000J
Comparative freq graph
Orion $349 vs Alclair Curve 2 $249
This time it’s a single BA vs a dual BA. The graphs this time have a little more difference with the Curve having more bass, a similar mid-range, but less lower treble. The Curve is considerably cheaper.
The build on both is very good – for materials you’d take the Orion, but for actual ergonomics and also comfort, the Curve will beat almost everything in its class. Simply put they are one of the most comfortable IEM’s I’ve ever worn. Both have a removable cable, but I would call the cable on the Orion better overall quality.
Comparatively the Curve is a lot bassier, and although mildly V shaped, it is a lot more rolled off in the lower and upper treble. Bass has a lot more impact with the Curve, but it remains quick and well textured. It does bring warmth to the overall signature though, and for someone who values enhanced clarity, this is where the Orion pulls away. Both are incredibly competent IEMs, but the detail retrieval on the Orion is simply better. It is cleaner and clearer, and for my personal tastes, this trumps the warmer, easier going signature of the Curve.
Orion vs Alclair Curve2
Comparative freq graph
Orion $349 vs q-Jays $400
An interesting comparison, and one I should qualify before we start. I liked the q-Jays so much I bought the review pair from q-Jays (paid real cash). Like the Curve comparison, this is single BA vs dual BA.
This time the build on both is quite simply impeccable. Both are made with exquisite precision, and both from durable high quality materials. Ergonomically it is a tie and although both have different shapes, both are also extremely easy to fit. For comfort though, the q-Jays win easily. They disappear when worn – I’m hoping that Ken’s improvements will even that playing field eventually. Both have MMCX removable cables, both are very good quality – the Tinsel looks and feels better, but the q-Jays is easier to handle.
Sonically both have very similar measurements, and they also sound very, very similar. Although the graph shows the Orion having a little more bass than the Jays, when listening the two are actually very close. Both have incredibly well controlled and textured bass though, and very similar mid-range presentations. I know some have difficulty with the q-Jays lower treble peak, but it’s never bothered me. What I do find a little strange comparing the two though is that the Orion actually sounds slightly clearer and cleaner in its vocal presentation. This could be the very slight bump at 2 kHz combined with my acuity or sensitivity in this particular frequency.
Choosing one over the other though is very difficult, and for me the only thing holding the Orion back is the comfort. And again, if Campfire does fix the internal shell shaping, I think I would choose the Orion over the q-Jays, and that should tell you how much I’m impressed by this earphone.
Orions vs q-Jays
Comparative freq graph
CAMPFIRE AUDIO ORION – SUMMARY
So here we are again, and time to summarise my experience with the Orion.
The Orion is an incredibly well built single BA IEM, with a very good ergonomic fit, and also an extremely good quality cable. A quick note on the cable too – it retails on ALO’s site for $149 if sold separately.
As far as fit and comfort goes, the fit for me is superb, but the comfort could be better with a few hard angles on the internal face making longer term listening sessions occasionally uncomfortable. YMMV in this regard.
Sonically the Orion is brilliantly balanced and quite neutral with very linear bass, an extremely coherent and well-tuned mid-range which delivers very clear vocals. The lower treble is well extended, and has plenty of detail, but falls short of any peakiness or sibilance.
The Orion will likely suit:
Fans of balanced presentation, and those who like clean and clear vocal presence
Those who value very good imaging and reasonable sound staging
The Orion may not suit anyone who:
Enjoys or requires significant bass impact
Likes a V shaped sound signature
At a current RRP of USD 349, the Orion represents very good value in my opinion, and the overall quality of build, fit and sonics (for those who like its particular presentation) is an excellent standard.
One thing I haven’t mentioned is the dedication and service of the Campfire Audio team. In my dealing to date, I have been very impressed by their willingness to take critique on board, and above all to constructively engage with their market audience, and ultimately improve the final product.
So would I buy these, and would I recommend them to friends or family? For myself this is an easy “yes”. I intend getting a pair as soon as the comfort issues are addressed – unless of course Ken releases something better in the near future. 4.5 stars from me, and it would be a perfect 5 if the comfort was better.
Once again I’d like to thank Ken and Mark for making this opportunity available.
From purely sound quality perspective, how does this iem is compared to full sized headphones, like Nighawks, audeze sine, or any other similarly priced cans?
Hi - unfortunately I no longer have the IEM (it was part of a tour) so it is very difficult to make those kinds of call when its now been more than 6 months since I had the Orion for the review. And if the headphones you mentioned, I haven't heard the Sine or Nighthawks. To give a rough guess - I would definitely say the Orion has similar audio quality to my HD630VB (which I absolutely love).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
[/size]
The sound: I wasn't expecting any big difference. But the combination of balanced output and this cable really takes the sound, the soundstage to a new level. The treble has a sparkle too. The overall sound is more airy and the sound stage is wider with good separation. To my ears, it is heaven.
I've to have the volume at a higher level in balanced mode that I do with while in single ended mode. Even if the price isn't $31, this cable is providing amazing listening experience and with the $31 price, this is outstanding. Extremely happy.